bicycle pedestrian advisory committee …...2019/08/19 · in indian shores/indian rocks beach...

THE PLANNING COUNCIL AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS (8:30 – 8:35)

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS – Please limit comments to 3 minutes (8:35 – 8:40)

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 17, 2019 (8:40 – 8:45)

4. FORWARD PINELLAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – July 10, 2019 (8:45 – 8:50)

5. FRIENDSHIP TRAIL PROJECT (8:50 – 9:05)

6. ROSERY ROAD PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS (9:05 – 9:15)

7. PINELLAS TRAIL REHABILITATION & RESURFACING (9:15 – 9:25)

8. I-275 TAMPA BAY NEXT PD&E STUDY (9:25 – 9:35)

9. ADVANTAGE PINELLAS: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (9:35 – 9:45)

10. SPOTlight EMPHASIS AREAS UPDATE (9:45 – 9:50)

• A Vision for U.S. Highway 19 Corridor

• Gateway Area Master Plan

• Enhancing Beach Community Access

11. BPAC BUSINESS (9:50 – 10:00) A. Pinellas Trail Guidebook Update B. Florida Greenways & Trails Council Meeting Recap C. Florida Bicycle Association (FBA) D. Pinellas Trails, Inc.

12. AGENCY REPORTS (10:00 – 10:10)

13. OTHER BUSINESS (10:10 – 10:30) A. Membership B. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest C. Suggestions for Future Agenda Topics D. Other

14. ADJOURNMENT (10:30)

NEXT BPAC MEETING – SEPTEMBER 16, 2019

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) 464-4062 (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Appeals: Certain public meetings result in actions taken by the public board, commission or agency that may be appealed; in such case persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at a public meeting/hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purposes, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE (BPAC) MEETING AGENDA

August 19, 2019 – 8:30 a.m.

310 Court Street, 1st Floor Conf. Room

Clearwater, FL 33756

Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee – August 19, 2019

3. Approval of Minutes

SUMMARY

The meeting summary for the June 17, 2019 meeting is attached for review and approval.

ATTACHMENT(S): BPAC Meeting Summary – June 17, 2019 ACTION: Approval of Meeting Summary

FORWARD PINELLAS

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY June 17, 2019

The following is a summary of the Forward Pinellas Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) held on June 17, 2019, in the Pinellas County Planning Department Conference Room, First Floor, 310 Court Street, Clearwater, Florida.

BPAC Members Present Brian Smith, Chairman At Large Citizen Representative Becky Afonso, Vice Chair North County Citizen Representative, Oldsmar Daniel Alejandro Largo Citizen Representative Dr. Lynn Bosco At Large Citizen Representative Kimberly Cooper St. Petersburg Citizen Representative Lucas Cruse St. Petersburg Bicycle Pedestrian Coordinator Scott Daniels Pinellas Trails, Inc. David Feller North County Citizen Representative, Oldsmar Lyle Fowler PC Parks & Conservation Resources (PCR) Diane Friel City of Largo Byron Hall Pinellas Park Citizen Representative Ric Hartman City of Clearwater Alan Johnson South Beaches Citizen Representative Jacob Labutka PSTA Charles Martin Dunedin Citizen Representative Mike Milvain St. Petersburg Citizen Representative Ron Rasmussen Pinellas Park Citizen Representative Derek Reeves City of Pinellas Park Joan Rice Pinellas County Public Works Traffic Annette Sala At Large Citizen Representative Michael Siebel At Large Citizen Representative Jim Wedlake Seminole Citizen Representative Georgia Wildrick Largo Citizen Representative Robert Yunk At Large Citizen Representative BPAC Members Absent Julie Bond CUTR Stephanie Carrier Pinellas County School System Representative Win Dermody Clearwater Citizen Representative Felicia Donnelly City of Oldsmar Deputy Eric Gibson Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Edward Hawkes At Large Citizen Representative Chip Haynes Clearwater Citizen Representative Charlie Johnson St. Petersburg Citizen Representative Paul Kurtz At Large Citizen Representative Caroline Lanford Pinellas County Planning Department Stephen Lasky At Large Citizen Representative Tiffany Sabiel Safe Routes to School Bert Valery North Beaches Citizen Representative Rachelle Webb Safe Routes to School Others Present Jensen Hackett FDOT Neil Wicks Citizen Cyclist Daphne Green City of Pinellas Park Dan D ’Antonio HNTB Jeff Gow Commissioner, City of Dunedin Dr. Jan Hirschfield Pinellas Trails, Inc. Rodney Chatman Forward Pinellas Staff Susan Miller Forward Pinellas Staff

BPAC MEETING SUMMARY

June 17, 2019 Page 2

Maria Kelly Forward Pinellas Staff 1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chairman Brian Smith, At Large Citizen Representative, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and the attendees introduced themselves. The Chair welcomed new member Mr. Derek Reeves, Pinellas Park representative.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Georgia Wildrick, Largo Citizen Representative, addressed the committee regarding a dangerous problem with the intersection of Rosery Road and Missouri Avenue, in front of the garden section of Walmart. She requested a discussion session at the next BPAC meeting. Ms. Kimberly Cooper suggested the City of St. Petersburg look at the intersection of 30th Avenue North and the Pinellas Trail and add more signage so that people on the Trail can find their way to the 30th Avenue North bicycle lanes and sharrows.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The summary from May 20, 2019 BPAC meeting was approved as provided with no corrections.

4. FORWARD PINELLAS ACTIONS Mr. Rodney Chatman, Forward Pinellas Planning Division Manager, reviewed the highlights from the Forward Pinellas Board June 12, 2019 meeting. The Board took action to adopt the FY2019/20 – 2023/24 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as well as the Annual Transportation Priorities. Mr. Chatman shared a few of the bike/ped projects appearing on the list to include the Gandy Boulevard and Bridge replacement PD & E, Pinellas Trail Loop Phase 5: 126th to Roosevelt Boulevard, Gulf Boulevard in Indian Shores/Indian Rocks Beach area: 195th to Walsingham and two trail projects to provide connections to the Howard Frankland Bridge: a 4th Street trail connection and an Ulmerton Road trail connection.

5. PINELLAS TRAIL CROSSING AT SKINNER BOULEVARD Mr. Dan D ’Antonio, HNTB, on behalf of FDOT, provided an update on the Passive Pedestrian Detection Pilot project at the Pinellas Trail and Skinner Boulevard. FDOT has been working with Pinellas County Public Works Traffic Engineering on additional safety countermeasures at this crossing. FDOT agreed that an automatic detection system could be implemented relatively quickly and easily that would activate the rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) when a Trail user approaches. This pilot project consists of solar powered RRFB devices that detect when a bicyclist or pedestrian approaches the intersection intending to cross. These RRFB devices do not require anyone to push the button to activate the beacons and will track the Trail user across the intersection and stop in a timely manner. This device uses infrared at night and video during the day, as well as works during inclement weather. This pilot project is also includes a before and after study to determine the effectiveness of this technology. Discussion ensued where questions were taken and appropriately answered.

6. WEST BAY DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS PLAN Ms. Joan Rice with Pinellas County Public Works Traffic provided an update on the West Bay Drive Complete Street Concept plan developed by Pinellas County Public Works Traffic Engineering, to assess the feasibility of various cross-section design and treatments. Recommendations are being considered by the County in conjunction with a planned resurfacing project that will include striping and pavement markings. The study area is the West Bay Drive corridor between the Belleair Causeway Bridge and Clearwater-Largo Road. The purpose of the plan is to reduce crashes, maintain vehicle travel time, improve pedestrian and bicycle mobility and create placemaking opportunities. The project has been split into four segments: 1) Belleair Causeway Bridge to Indian Rocks Road; 2) Indian Rocks Road to 20th Street NW; 3) 20th Street NW to Pinellas Trail and 4) Pinellas Trail to Clearwater-Largo Road. Concepts for each segment were presented based upon available right-of-way and the different characterizations of each segment. The next step is to follow-up with the different agencies, discuss designs and obtain interlocal agreements. Discussion ensued where questions were taken and appropriately answered. 7. APA NATIONAL CONFERENCE RECAP Mr. Chatman shared highlights of the American Planning Association (APA) National Conference held in San Francisco, California, with committee members. One of the interesting sessions he attended was based on the idea of combining data sources for an overview of where people are driving, walking and biking. StreetLight is a company that has come up with proprietary software using different data platforms molded together to produce multi-mode metrics that allow for better transportation planning. San Francisco has a very robust network of about 70-75 automated bicycle counters on a mix of trails and on-street facilities. Key findings from the counters include over 8 million bikes counted along the network, 63% of their average weekday ridership occurred at just 17 of the 51 cataloged counters. In 2017, more than 400,000 Bike Share rides were recorded, and after expanding 2018, that number jumped to 2 million. There is a strong, non-traditional bicycling and transit



commuting modeshare, with a separated bike facility sharing similar space with the express bus traveling in the same corridor. Questions were taken and appropriately answered. 8. ADVANTAGE PINELLAS: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Ms. Susan Miller, Forward Pinellas staff, provided a brief update on the Advantage Pinellas: Active Transportation Plan. Based upon the information received from the advisory committees, public input from the crowd sourcing tool and planned projects from the municipalities, the Draft Priority Corridors Map was created and distributed to the committee. The map identified key corridors that would connect activity and employment centers with residential areas, areas with low vehicle ownership, minority populations and popular destinations. From here, the existing gaps within those corridors will be prioritized for implementation strategically over the next ten or so years. Ms. Miller asked the committee to review the Draft Priority Corridors to see if there are any discrepancies or missing corridors. She reminded the members that at this time, the type of facility – whether a trail, bike lane or

sharrows – has not been specified. Please send feedback, comments and suggestions in by the end of June. Questions were

taken and appropriately answered.

9. SPOTLIGHT EMPHASIS AREAS UPDATE Mr. Chatman provided a brief update on SPOTlight areas. With regards to the Vision for US Highway 19 Corridor, the Board approved moving forward with the 34th Street South Lane Repurposing Project from 22nd Avenue South to 54th Avenue South through the Skyway Marina District. With regards to Enhancing Beach Access, the Board received the presentation from the City of Indian Shores and FDOT regarding the project on Gulf Boulevard to replace the flush-designed walkways with regular curb, gutter and concrete sidewalks in their town. The proposal was presented to BPAC in May, which voted to select the design with two 11-ft travel lanes, and an 8-ft shared use path on either side of the road. This project on Gulf Boulevard will move into the design phase to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and will also include drainage upgrades.

10. BPAC BUSINESS A . Florida Greenways & Trails Foundation and Council

BPAC Chair Brian Smith provided an update for the Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation and Council. Currently, a

meeting is scheduled in Dunedin from July 31st through August 1st, 2019, at the Holiday Inn Express for the Florida

Greenways and Trails Council. This is the group that handles the statewide planning for the SUNTrail Projects. The

Florida Greenways & Trails Foundation met in June, in Clermont, Florida which was awarded the newest Trail Town

designation.

B . Florida Bicycle Association (FBA) Vice-Chair Becky Afonso gave an update on the Florida Bicycle Association. Whit Blanton, Executive Director of Forward Pinellas is featured in the center spread of the Messenger Newsletter, receiving the 2018 Supporting Agency award. Ms. Afonso also announced the next Ride Leader/Ride Marshal public workshop session would be on Saturday June 22nd, 2019 in Tampa. The annual membership meeting would be held at the St. Petersburg Main Library on Saturday, July 27th, 2019, 1:00 – 4:00 pm. Finally, she said next Friday, June 28th, is Bike-Walk Tampa Bay Summer Summit in Tampa, and registration is still open.

C . Pinellas Trails Inc. Mr. Scott Daniels, Pinellas Trails, Inc., shared an update with the committee. BPAC committee member David Feller and his wife Linda recently donated a water fountain to be located on the trail at the NW corner of Keystone Road and East Lake Road and dedicated in July. Mr. Daniels reminded everyone that contributions for amenities and trees are collected to fund enhancements for the Trail.

11. AGENCY REPORTS

• Pinellas Trail Loop/Duke Energy Trail (North & South Gaps) Ms. Rice updated the committee on the North section of the Pinellas Trail Loop. On Thursday, June 20th, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will be holding a work session regarding concerns raised by residents along the current alignment of the Trail at the Public Works Complex, 22111 U.S. Highway 19 N in Clearwater. Duke Energy will be replacing poles along the Trail between Druid Road and Sunset Point Road, so that segment will be closed while the work is being done. The bridge widening over Alligator Creek will move up on the construction schedule. With regards to the South Gap, Public Works will be meeting with property owners regarding additional easements, as well as a PD & E project for 126 th Avenue, including the Trail, over to 28th Street.

• Clearwater Bicycle Pedestrian Program Mr. Ric Hartman, City of Clearwater, had already left the meeting, and no updated information was provided.

• Largo Bicycle Pedestrian Program



Ms. Diane Friel, City of Largo, updated the committee on the City of Largo. Regarding the Rosery Road/Poinsettia Road improvement project from the Pinellas Trail to Eagle Lake Park, Phase I is the Pinellas Trail to Missouri Avenue, with final design nearly complete. This should go before the City Commission for approval in August and construction should begin October 2019. A segment of Clearwater/Largo Road will be shut down during the construction phase for a few months due to planned improvements to the drainage and replacement of utility poles. Ms. Friel explained that the City did not approve a policy to reduce speed limits on residential streets from 30 mph to 25 mph, due to so many streets being impacted. Largo has developed a Special Traffic Calming policy and committee in which citizens can present a traffic calming issue to the committee for consideration of speed limit reduction on a case by case basis. More information coming.

• St. Petersburg Bicycle Pedestrian Program Mr. Lucas Cruse, St. Petersburg Transportation, provided a brief update on the City of St. Petersburg. Implementing Phase One of the Complete Streets Implementation Plan. The St. Petersburg BPAC will be discussing the projects and how they will be batched. With Neighborhood Greenways, strategies on media and marketing campaigns on how to educate people on what Neighborhood Greenways are and the what the tool box and how it works. St. Petersburg received a grant from the Bloomberg Foundation for American Cities for Climate Change, and they will be tracking the implantation of the Neighborhood Greenways and St. Petersburg will be working with National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) for training for updating design standards to make them appropriate for cities and not just highways. On a BRT note, one reason St. Petersburg will pursue the 60 foot articulated buses in that these buses will accommodate bikes without having to put them on the front of the bus. People will be able to just roll them on and off the buses and not be limited to just one or two bikes per bus.

• FDOT District 7 Updates There were not updates from FDOT at this time.

• Pinellas Trail Security Task Force (PTSTF) The next meeting will be held on July 9, 2019. The location of the meeting will be emailed out to the committee members for those who may like to attend.

12. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Membership There were no comments regarding this item.

B. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest

There were no comments regarding this item.

C. Suggestions for Future Agenda Topics Chair Smith would like to see an agenda topic on the section of the Pinellas Trail in Tarpon Springs that has never been surfaced and asked the committee to support a request to resurface this area.

D. Other There were no other comments or topics brought up during this item.

13. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Smith adjourned the meeting at 10:16 am. The next BPAC meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 19, 2019.


4. Forward Pinellas Executive Summary – July 10, 2019

SUMMARY

The July 10, 2019 Executive Summary will be provided for your information. A staff member will review actions taken by the Forward Pinellas Board at that meeting.

ATTACHMENT(S): Executive Summary for July 10, 2019 ACTION: None Required, Informational Item Only


Garlen Capita of consultant firm WRT presented initial draft recommendations of the Gateway Area Master Plan

● The Gateway/Mid-County Area Master Plan has been an 18-month collaborative effort led by Forward Pinellas, along with funding partners Pinellas County, the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Largo, the City of Pinellas Park, and the Florida Department of Transportation

○ The study area is bounded by Belleair Road to the north, Starkey Road to the west, Gandy Boulevard/62nd Avenue North to the South, and Tampa Bay to the east

○ In stakeholder interviews, have heard that the Gateway needs safety and connectivity, but also a sense of place

● The master plan lays out an action-oriented strategy creating a series of distinctive places within the Gateway

○ Within that vision is a four-part framework: ■ Incorporating multimodal transportation, including first/last mile solutions and premium

transit ■ Land use + innovation ■ Triple bottom line resilience (environmental, human well-being, economic) ■ Sustainable infrastructure

● Capita specifically outlined a land use vision for various sub-areas and sites within the Gateway ○ Eco-Industrial Park

■ Example: South of Ulmerton Road and west of 49th Street, also bounded by the Cross Bayou canal to the east

■ This area has degraded land uses and is not as developed as it could be, thus having transformative potential

■ The vision gives flexibility to parcel sizes, allowing both large and smaller manufacturing to co-locate

■ This area could have a central transit node with circulator and other transit, connected to trails and possible bike share

■ Would consolidate stormwater management to become a feature of the site - County is currently acquiring right of way along the canal to use it as a stormwater collector

○ Mixed-Use Center ■ Example: Carillon Zone 4, remaining 58-area undeveloped area in Carillon nearby to

Echelon City Center ■ Redeveloped surface parking lots could be redeveloped into shared parking structures

and add density to areas that are not currently dense ■ An intermodal center could happen here or somewhere on Roosevelt, and peripheral

park and ride with a circulator would also be a possibility ■ Opportunity to implement renewable energy generation and storage

○ Airport Business Park ■ Leverages the area around St. Petersburg/Clearwater International Airport and its

proximity to the coming Gateway Expressway ■ Taking surface parking lots to more intense development ■ This is infilling an area with a high school and office buildings, so development would

need to support the existing area to make it more safe, walkable and connected ○ Mixed-Use Employment

Board Meeting Summary & Action Sheet

July 10, 2019 Please note that this summary has not been approved as the official minutes of the board.

2

■ Example: US 19/Bay Vista area, includes technology (Tech Data Corporation, Vology), health (Suncoast Hospice, e-Tele Quote Insurance), and regional/community (Bay Vista Learning Center, Largo Datsko Park) uses

■ Lots of existing surface parking and tight, existing residential neighborhoods ■ Could develop into a mixed-use, walkable, urban environment with public spaces,

opportunities for residential development with mixed commercial and other uses ● These mixed-use developments would benefit both the adjacent residential

developments and the office workers ● The study team is currently developing guiding principles for adoption of an interlocal agreement between

key partners to guide implementation of the master plan over time ● Board members were highly complimentary of the concepts and offered suggestions for additional

stakeholders to contact and ways to consolidate land

Following extended positive discussion, the board unanimously recommended approval of proposed changes to the Countywide Plan standards following a public hearing

● Forward Pinellas staff had previously presented about the draft amendments at the June board meeting ● The Countywide Plan is periodically updated in response to changing conditions and needs

○ The proposed changes aim to better accommodate the growth that is projected over the next 25 years, estimated at 93,000 new people and 59,000 new jobs, and include:

■ A new land use strategy map with priority transit development corridors ■ Revised framework for adopting and amending activity center and multimodal corridor

designation ■ A new Planned Redevelopment District category, a middle ground between suburban

and transit-oriented development ■ Bonus provisions that encourage transit-supportive mixed use development ■ A proposed strategy for priority corridor funding, linking land use and transportation

○ The proposed changes would incentivize mixed use development by allowing the full density and intensity to be used for mixed-use areas instead of splitting the allowed densities among uses

○ After the initial presentation in June, local governments had recommended density increases for multimodal corridors above what was previously proposed, although the new densities are still below activity center levels

○ The changes will also simplify the amendment process to allow some minor amendments to occur at the local government level

● Board members expressed the need for transit to better serve residential, business and industrial areas going forward as the population grows, as well as the need for affordable housing in these areas

○ The executive director noted that these amendments exemplified the Forward Pinellas mission of linking land use and transportation decision-making, as well as economic development, with Commissioner Ken Welch saying he could see the “promised land” of transportation and land use plans uniting

● Planners Advisory Committee member and St. Petersburg Urban Planning Manager Derek Killborn spoke in support, saying that the planned changes show how communities can achieve high density and still fit into the community character

● The proposed changes will now come before the Board of County Commissioners in its role as the Countywide Planning Authority for approval in October

Forward Pinellas Staff an update on the Advantage Pinellas Plan and the parallel development of the Active Transportation Plan

● A brief update was presented on the overall Advantage Pinellas Plan, including a Metroquest survey running through the end of July asking for resident input on transportation priorities

3

○ Currently, Forward Pinellas staff is coming up with cost estimates for projects and defining a revenue split among all modes of transportation

○ In order to prioritize projects for funding, Forward Pinellas will look to set targets that include traffic flow/congestion relief, safety, mode share, Greenhouse Gas emissions, equity and enhanced transit service

● The Advantage Pinellas: Active Transportation Plan is the portion of the Advantage Pinellas Plan that focuses specifically on walking and bicycling

○ While Pinellas County has numerous high-profile accomplishments - being a bronze level Bicycle Friendly Community, the Pinellas Trail Loop, Complete Streets - bicycle/pedestrian traffic fatalities are still higher than the statewide and national averages

○ Since the last bicycle/pedestrian master plan was adopted in 2013, there has been new guidance on designing for all ages and abilities, as well as other infrastructure and design standards

● In visioning exercises, stakeholders said they wanted a safe, connected, accessible network ○ Pinellas residents responded to an interactive mapping tool and indicated the routes they

currently walk or bike, would like to walk or bike, and what barriers they experienced to walking and biking

○ Data indicates that nearly 60% of people are interested in riding a bicycle, but are concerned because they don’t feel safe

● The Active Transportation Plan will lay out a vision for 10-12 strategic projects that can be built over the next 15 years

○ The Active Transportation Plan will identify corridors where demand is high and it is feasible to build infrastructure

○ In identifying those corridors, planners considered several components: ■ Population/employment density ■ Proximity to destinations ■ Equity ■ Transit stops on core routes ■ Typical walk & bike trip lengths.

○ Next steps include project prioritization, proposed network improvements, and summaries of project concepts

● Dunedin Mayor Julie Bujalski asked for the countywide consistency of trail crossing signage and rules to be considered in the plan

The Forward Pinellas executive director gave a brief update on the status of the US 19 interchanges from Tampa Road north to the merge with Alternate US 19

● The Florida Department of Transportation was looking into alternatives to elevated interchanges and flyovers north of Tampa Road

● While Tampa was not deemed feasible for innovative treatments, others were feasible for treatments such as displaced left turn lanes or restricted crossing u-turns (sometimes called a continuous flow intersection)

○ While elevated interchanges would cost $80-100M, innovative intersection options $40M-50M with the same lifespan and level of service

○ There are still right of way impacts that need to be evaluated ● FDOT staff will be coming before the Forward Pinellas board in coming months to present these options ● The first continuous flow intersection recently opened in Lee County:

https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/a-continuous-flow-intersection-is-opening-in-lee-county

4

The board recommended approval of three amendments to the Countywide Plan

● A subthreshold amendment in the City of Clearwater at the southwest corner of US 19 North and Nursery Road, amending from Retail and Services to Activity Center in order to incorporate a vacant property into the Clearwater Activity Center for redevelopment

● A subthreshold amendment in the City of St. Petersburg at Pasadena Presbyterian Church, 111 Pinellas Way N., allowing the property to exchange its existing Public/Semi-Public and Residential Low Medium uses to allow it to build homes on the part of the property previously categorized as Public/Semi-Public

● A regular amendment in the City of Tarpon Springs north of River Watch Boulevard on US 19 N from Retail and Services to Industrial to allow for the development of an auto repair facility

Other Items

● The board adopted the Forward Pinellas budget for the 2020 fiscal year totaling $3.66M and maintaining the current 0.0150 millage rate, which moves to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval in September

● The board made appointments to its legislative affairs committee: County Commissioner Dave Eggers, Indian Rocks Beach Mayor Cookie Kennedy, and St. Petersburg Councilmember Brandi Gabbard will all remain on the committee, and Clearwater Councilmember David Allbritton will join as a new member

● The PSTA board approved an agreement to accept $4M from the City of St. Petersburg for the Central Avenue BRT project, and PSTA will hold open houses along the corridor as the project gets closer to completion of the design phase

● The board discussed the upcoming July 18 workshop of the Board of County Commission to address transportation funding options, which has been a joint project of PSTA, Forward Pinellas and Pinellas County

● The Palm Harbor roundabout item was deferred at FDOT’s request until the board’s next meeting, which will be in September as the August meeting is canceled

● The board approved a TIP modification to transfer funds from the previous Forward Pinellas unified planning work program to the current FY2020 UPWP.

● The TBARTA MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee is revising its bylaws, which includes formalizing the Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group as a subcommittee

Action Sheet

July 10, 2019

At its July meeting, the Forward Pinellas Board took the following official actions:

Consent Agenda (vote: 11-0) Approved to include the following:

A. Approval of Minutes of the June 12, 2019 Meeting B. Approval of Committee Appointments (TCC) C. Approval of Proposed Amendments to the School Transportation Safety Committee (STSC) Bylaws D. Approval of Interlocal Agreements for Complete Streets Grants

1. City of Clearwater

2. City of St. Petersburg

E. Approval of Award for Collection of Traffic Counts

5

F. Approval of Scope of Services for Downtown St. Petersburg Mobility Study G. Approval of Procurement #19-04 for Vision Zero Effort

Modification to the FY 2018/19 – FY 2022/23 Transportation Improvement Program Following a presentation by Forward Pinellas staff and public hearing, the board, in its role as the metropolitan planning organization, approved the modification to the FY 2018/19 – FY 2022/23 TIP. (vote: 11-0)

Subthreshold Countywide Plan Map Amendment(s) Two cases were recommended for approval:

1. CW 19-11 – City of Clearwater (vote: 10-0, Mayor Bradbury abstained) 2. CW 19-12 – City of St. Petersburg (vote: 11-0)

Regular Countywide Plan Map Amendment(s) One case was recommended for approval:

1. CW 19-13 – City of Tarpon Springs (vote: 10-0, Mayor Bradbury abstained)

Proposed Amendments to the Countywide Plan Strategies and Countywide Rules Following a staff presentation and public hearing, the board, in its role as the Pinellas Planning Council, adopted a resolution authorizing the transmittal of the proposed amendments to the Countywide Plan Strategies and Rules to the Countywide Planning Authority for adoption. (vote: 11-0)

Annual Budget and Millage Rate for FY 20 Following a presentation by Forward Pinellas staff, the board, in its role as the Pinellas Planning Council, adopted Resolution 19-2 authorizing the transmittal of the budget and millage rate for FY 2020 to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. (vote: 11-0)

Forward Pinellas Legislative Committee Appointments The board reappointed Commissioner Dave Eggers, Councilmember Brandi Gabbard and Mayor Cookie Kennedy and added Councilmember David Allbritton to its Legislative Committee. (vote: 11-0)


5. Friendship Trail Project

SUMMARY

When the Gandy Bridge from Pinellas to Hillsborough County became functionally obsolete in the 1990’s, concerned citizens were motivated and rallied to repurpose the bridge for recreational opportunities. Elected officials on both sides of Tampa Bay were engaged and along with the community, the 2.6-mile Friendship Trail Bridge was open for use in 2000, and became extremely popular for cyclists, hikers, walkers, inline skaters, fishermen, persons with disabilities, and our military. Based on manual counts, annual “attendance” grew from nearly 400,000 to more than 600,000 by the time the Friendship Trail Bridge was closed in late 2008 due to structural safety issues. The Friendship Trail Bridge was the water-span section of a larger non-motorized corridor called the Friendship Trail to connect St. Petersburg to Tampa. The Friendship Trail was envisioned to not only link the two counties, but eventually would be extended on both sides of the Bay to provide a non-motorized connection from downtown to downtown. FDOT replacement of the Howard Frankland Bridge/I-275 will include a trail along its length to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, and demonstrates a very real commitment to non-motorist infrastructure. With that commitment, it would be appropriate to begin preparing plans to add bike/ped facilities to the future northbound Gandy Bridge. With those facilities, the Friendship Trail from the Tampa Riverwalk to the St. Petersburg Pier can become reality. The Friendship Trail - a "Trail of Two Cities" has spurred excitement once again as a grassroots initiative to encourage the entities involved (City of Tampa, City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County and FDOT) to make their best efforts to improve and complete the trail segments in their jurisdictions and to cooperate to ensure that they are coordinated in linking them. There is plenty of time until the Friendship Trail would be a reality - time for the entities to plan, budget and accomplish their segments. ATTACHMENTS: Advocacy Page with Map Friendship Trail Bridge Attendance 2000-2008

ACTION: Informational Item

A Trail of Two Cities - Tampa Riverwalk to St. Petersburg Pier

PURPOSE To develop support for the vision of the Friendship Trail, a recreation trail from the Tampa Riverwalk to the St. Petersburg Pier; to encourage the further development of existing trail segments by the entities involved: City of Tampa, City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County and State of Florida (FL Dept.of Transportation).

BACKGROUND 1. The 2.6 mile “old” Gandy Bridge was built in 1956. When a southbound replacement was built, ownership

of the “old” bridge was transferred from the state to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. The bridge was rehabilitated to a recreation trail and re-opened in 1999 as the “Friendship TrailBridge”, annually used by approximately 600,000 bikers, hikers & walkers, rollerbladers, fishermen, persons with disabilities and our military until it was closed in 2008 for safety reasons and eventually demolished.

2. While the Friendship TrailBridge provided the trail’s connection over Tampa Bay, government entities on both sides of the bay planned and began connecting trails for what could become the “Friendship Trail”. Further development and connecting those plans for a Friendship Trail are stalled until another opportunity to cross Tampa Bay becomes available.

ADVOCACY 1. The current northbound Gandy Bridge crossing Tampa Bay was constructed in 1975. While it is in good

shape (see http://www.ledgerdata.com/bridges/hillsborough/gandy-bridge-eb/100300), it will eventually become no longer useful and be replaced. The planned new construction of the nearby Howard Frankland Bridge with a pedestrian walkway offers precedent for a recreation trail on a new Gandy Bridge. Further, the popularity of recreation trails including the Friendship TrailBridge should add credence to that scenario.

2. Completion of a “South Tampa Trail” may be considered by the City of Tampa as an exciting way to link the Bayshore Greenway to the bridge. Other options exist.

3. Completion of plans of Pinellas County’s “Causeway Enhancement” would provide the link from the Pinellas County side of the bridge to St. Petersburg’s network of trails and parks southward to the Pier.

SUMMARY A completed Friendship Trail would involve a variety of experiences including urban, suburban neighborhoods, parks, 2.6 miles over-the-water (Tampa Bay) and a possible return of fishing opportunities which had been lost.

Advocacy for the Friendship Trail www.friendshiptrail.org

http://www.ledgerdata.com/bridges/hillsborough/gandy-bridge-eb/100300

January 25,840 16,710 14,400 13,170 30,766 31,335 30,015 34,526 47,176

February 23,610 16,750 14,410 14,800 24,405 29,012 23,748 24,733 43,596

March 49,654 22,154 19,833 28,963 46,211 35,559 32,574 41,374 62,959

April 30,792 24,120 24,240 32,052 42,160 55,329 48,476 38,790 73,369

May 36,166 31,174 31,733 35,503 44,002 60,887 53,042 55,237 79,924

June 36,442 25,984 66,906 64,344 41,460 56,137 45,032 54,626 55,475

July 49,210 27,328 21,882 42,504 55,810 68,389 60,769 56,491 62,792

August 43,395 26,222 24,892 49,984 51,955 55,456 56,847 48,286 30,722

September 32,188 29,484 23,686 73,231 46,697 54,206 59,583 59,627 52,434

October 28,236 20,664 44,004 32,651 61,753 36,677 52,821 70,399 49,798

November 19,280 13,400 28,750 35,620 30,905 32,017 38,099 55,120 37,497 *

December 16,210 11,650 25,610 28,723 35,880 21,450 29,664 54,342 15,643 **

TOTAL 391,023 265,640 340,346 451,545 512,004 536,454 530,670 593,551 611,385

2006 2007 2008

* Friendship TrailBridge closed 11-06-08 @ 5 pm

** Friendship TrailBridge plus catwalks closed 12-27-08

FRIENDSHIP TRAILBRIDGE ATTENDANCE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

FT Attendance annual

8/1/2019


6. Rosery Road Phase I Improvements

SUMMARY

Forward Pinellas created the Complete Streets program in 2016 to provide funding for the development of concept plans and for constructing transportation projects that make roadways safer and more accessible for all users, and to integrate land use and transportation planning countywide. In December 2017, the City of Largo submitted a Complete Streets application to Forward Pinellas for the eastern portion of the corridor, which connects two neighborhood activity centers to the Pinellas Trail. The project was approved for construction of Phase 2, from Missouri Avenue to Eagle Lake Park. Phase 1, from the Pinellas Trail to Missouri Avenue is funded for construction this year, and Phase 2 is funded for design in FY 22/23. Please welcome Mr. Barry Westmark, Senior Engineer with the City of Largo, as he presents information about the Rosery Road Complete Streets Plan to the Committee. ATTACHMENT(S): Article: Largo Moves Forward with $7M Road Project – June 26, 2019 ACTION: None required; informational item only


7. Pinellas Trail Rehabilitation & Resurfacing

SUMMARY

Over the last few meetings, BPAC members have discussed the poor pavement conditions in a few areas of the Pinellas Trail. Interestingly, many comments regarding the same issue were received during the 2019 Trail Users Survey. Pavement condition evaluation identifies surface ‘distress’ such as cracking, root damage, surface bumps, edge degradation, rutting, lifting and crumbling to determine the type, extent and severity of the damage. The resulting pavement condition index number between 0 (zero) and 100 is a statistical measure, with 100 representing the best possible condition, and 0 being the worst. The pavement condition evaluation identifies any areas in need of immediate maintenance, areas to be rehabilitated, develop preventative maintenance strategies and maintenance budgets. With proper maintenance, minor surface issues can be mitigated to increase the life of the pavement, before more expensive replacement is necessary. In the case of the Pinellas Trail, the condition of the surface is an important safety concern and requires a high-quality smooth surface for all its users. Bumps and cracks are a particularly hazardous surface condition for users with small wheels such as inline skaters, those with strollers, bicycles with narrow tires, those with mobility challenges, small children and seniors. At its June 17, 2019 meeting, the BPAC requested this item be added to the August agenda for discussion. ATTACHMENT(S): MPO to County Administrator RE: Live Oak Street Area Rehabilitation Fred Marquis Pinellas

Trail, July 23, 2014 MPO Newsletter Action Sheet July 9, 2014

ACTION: Based on Discussion

Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization310 Court Strent. 2nd Floor. Clearwater. Florida 337S6 . r727W64-S2UO: Fax (727)464-8201

ri

TO: Mark Woodard, Interim County Administrator

COPY TO: Paul Cozzie, DirectorPinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources

1

^ /-. r <» ## rf ^+ ^f-

FROM: Jim Kennedy, Vice Chairman ^..c.^^^- 1 / ^^

» fI

> ^*^ ^ fI

Pinelias County Metropolitan Panning Organizatfon^ ^

^ t^ *.*/, ^

SUBJECT: Live Oak Street Area Rehabilitation Fred Marquis Pinellas Trai

DATE: July 23, 2014

At its July 9, 2014 meeting, the Pineltas County Metropoiitan Pianning Organization (MPO)received information regarding a section of the Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail where thesurface is in extreme need of repair. Citizen members of the MPO's Bicycle PedestrianAdvisory Committee (BPAC) provided details at their June meeting of the area where thesurface'is m poor condition and could create issues for trail users with small or narrowwheels, inexperienced, or unskilled bicyclists,

As the Pinellas Trail is used by many different kinds of users, including walkers, cyclists,and skaters, an aggressive maintenance program is necessary.

The MPO recommends that the surface of the Pineilas Trail be rehabilitated and/orrefurbished in the area south of Live Oak Street, north of Pine Street, and that the repairproject be prioritized by PineHas County. Such repair would complement therec®ntimprovements to various public facilities in this area, including a new public park recentlyopened by the City of Tarpon Springs.

The MPO appreciates your partnership and assistance in prioritizing this maintenanceproject to provide a safe Trail surface for all the users

H:\usdrs\cendocs',MPO\MPO FoIlow-Up Letters.ck

!»Web Address- www. {jinoll^ccunty. .->r'j/mtiv Fn^nd Us on Facepook

Web Address: www.pinellascounty.org/mpo Friend Us on Facebook

Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 310 Court Street, 2

nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 ● (727)464-8200; Fax (727)464-8201

MPO

Newsletter/Action Sheet July 9, 2014

I. CALL TO ORDER

Vice Chairman Jim Kennedy called the meeting to order.

II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE Mayor Archie conducted the invocation and led the Pledge for the MPO.

III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There were no citizens to be heard.

IV. CONSENT AGENDA The MPO approved the consent agenda, which included the June 11, 2014 MPO meeting minutes; invoices from Tindale-Oliver and Associates and TBARTA (CCC services); printing invoice for Transportation Disadvantaged applications; amendments to agreements for Quality of Life Community Services, Inc., Hillsborough County Department of Health and Social Services, City of St. Petersburg, and TBARTA for One-Call/One-Click Research and Transportation Information Center; and printing pedestrian safety awareness education material.

V. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A. Proposed Amendments to the Facilities Element of the Bicycle Pedestrian

Master Plan 1. Circle Lake Tarpon 2. Lansbrook Area Following a public hearing, the MPO approved the proposed amendments to the Facilities Element of the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan.

VI. PRESENTATION/ACTION ITEMS A. Approval of Proposed MPO FY15 Budget

The MPO approved the FY15 budget. MPO staff agreed to provide follow-up information on several items including the anticipated cost savings resulting from the unification.

B. Pinellas County Mobility Plan Policies and Code Provisions The MPO approved the Mobility Plan Policies and Code Provisions.

C. Federal Transportation Legislation The MPO received a staff report regarding the Transportation for America’s advocacy for discretionary programs that should be included in the reauthorization of the federal bill. MPO staff is monitoring reauthorization activities.

D. Pinellas Trail Security Task Force Meeting The MPO received a report from staff and board members who attended the security camera field trip to Bradenton on July 7, 2014. Vice Chairman Kennedy provided a copy of the letter sent to the County Administrator following the last meeting wherein the MPO encouraged the County to participate in St. Petersburg’s pilot project. A copy of the response from the Interim County Administrator was included in the agenda packet. A brief report was provided on the July 8, 2014 Pinellas Trail Security

http://www.pinellascounty.org/mpo

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pinellas-County-Metropolitan-Planning-Organization/186097844773247

MPO Newsletter/Action Sheet July 9, 2014 Page 2

Task Force meeting. During the discussion, Councilmember Hock-DiPolito provided a report on the meeting she and BPAC Chairman Brian Smith had with U.S. DOT officials regarding the MPO/County TIGER VI grant application. She encouraged other agencies to send letters of support for the application. MPO members requested additional information about County Park Rangers, including the number of paid rangers.

E. 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Preliminary Cost Feasible Roadway Plan The MPO’s consultant provided an overview of the planned roadway projects and the associated cost and revenue information for the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update. MPO members had questions and comments on several projects including the following:

• 22nd

Avenue/Gulfport Boulevard needs to occur sooner than 2031 – request for information on prioritization and cost

• Costs and timeframe for the County’s bridge projects

• 62nd

Avenue North – need to consider different needs on different segments

• State criteria should be used for prioritizing County projects County staff to provide a presentation at the September MPO meeting regarding County projects and the prioritization process. The LRTP will be presented to the board for preliminary approval and opening of the comment period at the September meeting, with final adoption in December 2014.

F. Endorsement of Regional Priority List (Follow-Up to Tampa Bay TMA Leadership Group Meeting) The MPO endorsed the Regional Priority List.

G. Committee Recommendations 1. BPAC Recommendations

The MPO approved the BPAC recommendation to support the rehabilitation/ refurbishment of the Pinellas Trail in the area south of Live Oak Street in Tarpon Springs. Regarding the BPAC recommendation to install appropriate street signs to identify all roadway-trail crossings, the MPO requested a list of those roadways. The MPO approved the BPAC recommendation. The MPO approved the BPAC recommendation to support the inclusion of vulnerable road user crashes not involving a motor vehicle on crash data reports. Regarding the BPAC recommendation to request FDOT removal of Qwick-Kurbs along Gulf Boulevard, MPO staff indicated FDOT agreed to review the other 8 locations. The MPO approved the BPAC recommendation.

2. TCC Recommendations Regarding the TCC recommendation to make the use of electronic devices while driving a primary offense, the MPO deferred this item to the September meeting to clarify the recommendation. The MPO approved the amended TCC bylaws.

H. Committee Appointments The MPO approved the appointments of Leslie Viens as a Dunedin representative and Karen Mullins as an At Large representative on the Citizens Advisory Committee; Evan Mory as the St. Petersburg Department of Transportation and Parking

MPO Newsletter/Action Sheet July 9, 2014 Page 3

representative and Dave Goodwin as the St. Petersburg Planning Development Services alternate on the Technical Coordinating Committee; and Jorge Quintas as the Dunedin Traffic Engineering alternate on the Technical Coordinating Committee.

VII. REPORTS/UPDATE

A. PSTA Activities Report The MPO deferred the PSTA report to the September MPO meeting.

B. Follow-Up Regarding Belcher Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard The MPO received a report on the road safety audit that was recently conducted for Belcher Road and Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard.

C. Director’s Report It was reported that FDOT agreed to modify the language for the MPO Interlocal Agreement. The modified agreement will be circulated to each local government, with the intent to have it executed and the new MPO members seated at the September board meeting.

VIII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Reminder – August MPO Meeting Cancelled

The August MPO meeting is cancelled. B. 2040 LRTP Stakeholder and Public Outreach Report

A chart for the 2040 LRTP stakeholder and public outreach was included in the agenda packet.

C. June 13, 2014 CCC Meeting and Joint Meeting With the Central Florida MPO Alliance A summary of the CCC meeting and joint meeting of the CCC with the Central Florida MPO Alliance of June 13, 2014 was included in the agenda packet.

D. Other

h:\users\cendocs\mpo\ newsletter\2014\newsletter 2014-07 July 2014.ck


8. I-275 Tampa Bay Next PD&E Study

SUMMARY

As a part of Tampa Bay Next, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is conducting a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Reevaluation Study to evaluate the addition of two express lanes in each direction on I-275 from north of I-375 to south of Gandy Boulevard. In addition, FDOT is evaluating the construction of a second express lane from south of Gandy to the Howard Frankland Bridge (one express lane in each direction is already under construction along this segment). These proposed improvements will tie-in with the planned replacement of the Howard Frankland Bridge. This Reevaluation also analyzes replacing the I-275 ramp bridges on 4th Street North over Big Island Gap, providing trail connections from the Howard Frankland Bridge to 4th Street North and Ulmerton Road, and modifying the Gateway Expressway interchange area to provide ramp connections in all directions to/from the Gateway Expressway to the proposed express lanes on I-275. To meet drainage and stormwater requirements, pond sites will be needed to accommodate new impervious surface due to widening to accommodate express lanes. Several of these new pond site locations will be outside of the existing right of way. A Public Hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2019 beginning at 5:30 at the First Baptist Church of St. Petersburg, Heritage Hall at 1900 Gandy Boulevard N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. A representative from FDOT will provide an overview of the project and answer questions from committee members. ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: None required; informational item only


9. Advantage Pinellas: Active Transportation Plan

SUMMARY

Every five years, Forward Pinellas is responsible to develop a 25-year transportation plan, called the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Branded as Advantage Pinellas, the plan examines countywide transportation needs, land uses, shifting regional travel patterns, technology and demographic changes since the previously adopted LRTP. One of the foundations of future of transportation planning in Pinellas County is non-motorized (bicycle and pedestrian) travel through the master plan, titled the Active Transportation Plan. Over the past few months, the BPAC has provided valuable input and direction for development of the Active Transportation Plan. The consultant, HDR, along with staff, has met with the advisory committees to present their progress throughout the development of the plan components and analysis. Project priorities from each jurisdiction were requested by the beginning of June. The BPAC will continue to discuss and comment on the Active Transportation Plan projects, priorities and policies. ATTACHMENTS: Draft Pedestrian Priority Corridors Draft Bicycle Priority Corridors Priority Corridors Scoring Chart

ACTION: BPAC to provide comments based on discussion

)p

+©

?ò

HoneymoonIsland

State Park

BrookerCreek

Preserve

TarponSprings

!(1

)p

AÈ

AÈ

AÂ

)p

+©

AÊ

!(2

!(3!(4

!(5

!(6

!(7

!(8!(9

!(10

!(11

!(12

!(13 !(14

!(15

NorthCentral?ò

O

0 0.8 1.6 2.4Miles

ExistingInfrastructure

North Priority Corridors - Ped

MunicipalityPriority

)z

?ò

OldTampa

Bay

%&g(

WeedonIsland

Preserve

¾¾q

IndianShores

IndianRocksBeach

BelleairBeach %&g(

!(1

)p+© AÊ

NorthCentral?ò

SouthCentral

!(2

!(3

!(4

!(5

!(6

!(7

!(8

!(9

!(10

!(11

!(12

!(13!(14

!(16

)pAæ

Aæ+©

Aå

Aè

Aã)p !(15

O

0 1 2 3Miles


Central Priority Corridors - Ped


)z

)p

%&g(

+©

FortDe Soto

Park

WeedonIsland

Preserve

St.Petersburg

Gulfport

St. PeteBeach

TreasureIsland

MadeiraBeach

RedingtonShores

%&g(

+©

Central

!(6

!(8

)z

Aæ

Aæ

Aè

Aè)p

%&g(

Aã

AÞ

South

!(11!(14

!(13

!(15

!(4

!(1

!(12

!(3

!(17

!(2

!(18

!(19

!(7!(5

!(9

!(10!(16

O

0 1 2 3Miles

Existing Infrastructure

South Priority Corridors - PedMunicipality Priority

)p

+©

?ò

HoneymoonIsland

State Park

BrookerCreek

Preserve

TarponSprings

!(1

)p

AÈ

AÈ

AÂ

)p

+©

AÊ

!(2

!(3!(4

!(5

!(6

!(7

!(8

!(9

!(10

!(11

!(12

!(13

!(14

!(15

NorthCentral?ò

O

0 0.8 1.6 2.4MilesNorth Priority Corridors - Bike

ExistingInfrastructureMunicipalityPriority

)z

?ò

OldTampa

Bay

%&g(

WeedonIsland

Preserve

¾¾q

IndianShores

IndianRocksBeach

BelleairBeach %&g(

!(1

)p+© AÊ

NorthCentral?ò

SouthCentral

!(2!(3

!(4

!(5

!(6

!(7

!(8!(9

!(10

!(11

!(12

!(13

!(14

!(16

)pAæ

Aæ+©

Aå

Aè

Aã)p !(15

O

0 1 2 3Miles


Central Priority Corridors - Bike


)z

)p

%&g(

+©

FortDe Soto

Park

WeedonIsland

Preserve

St.Petersburg

Gulfport

St. PeteBeach

TreasureIsland

MadeiraBeach

RedingtonShores

%&g(

+©

Central

!(6!(8

)z

Aæ

Aæ

Aè

Aè)p

%&g(

Aã

AÞ

South

!(11

!(14

!(13!(15

!(4!(1

!(12

!(3

!(17

!(2

!(18

!(19

!(7

!(5

!(9

!(10!(16

O

0 1 2 3Miles

Existing Infrastructure

South Priority Corridors - BikeMunicipality Priority

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANDraft Priority Corridors

CORRIDOR FROM TORANK

BIKE

RANK

PEDZONE

PRIORITY

SCORE

BIKE

PRIORITY

SCORE

PED

NORTH

RANK

BIKE

NORTH

RANK

PED

Central

RANK

BIKE

Central

RANK

PED

SOUTH

RANK

BIKE

SOUTH

RANK

PED

Municipality

Priority

113th Avenue Tom Stuart Causeway Ulmerton Road 23 25 Central 51 36 8 9 No

13th Avenue N/63rd Street N/17th Avenue N Pinellas Trail 28th St S 9 8 South 59 46 8 8 No

142nd Avenue N Pinellas Trail Duke Energy Trail 14 21 Central 54 38 2 6 Yes

18th Avenue S/Tangerine Greenway 55th Street S 4th Street S 1 1 South 68 56 1 1 No

19th Street S 26th Ave S Central Avenue 2 2 South 65 56 2 2 No

26th Ave S/Gulfport Multi-use Trail Skyway Marina Trail 4th Street S 7 9 South 59 45 7 9 No

28th Street N/S/Sawgrass Lake Trail Pinellas Trail Roosevelt Blvd 25 23 Central/South 50 37 9 7 13 13 Yes

4th Street N Gandy Blvd/Duke Energy Trail Howard Frankland Bridge Trail 41 41 Central 28 16 14 14 No

55th Street S/Gulfport Spur Joe's Creek Trail Shore Blvd S 6 7 South 60 48 6 7 Yes

70th Avenue N/Park Boulevard N Sawgrass Lake Park Gulf Blvd 16 15 Central 53 42 4 3 No

71st Street N/Belcher Road 54th Avenue N Belleair Rd 21 18 Central 52 39 6 4 No

Bay Pines Trail/150th Avenue Gulf Boulevard Pinellas Trail 31 31 South 44 33 15 16 No

Bayshore Drive Oldsmar Trail Veterans Memorial Lane 34 36 North 40 27 9 10 Yes

Bayway Trail North Gulf Boulevard Skyway Trail 40 37 South 34 24 18 18 No

Belleair Causeway/East Bay Drive/Roosevelt Blvd Gulf Boulevard Ulmerton Road 22 19 Central 51 39 7 5 No

Belleair Road Pinellas Trail Duke Energy Trail 19 24 Central 52 36 5 8 Yes

Central Avenue/107th Avenue Gulf Boulevard Bayshore Drive NE/Pinellas Trail Loop (North Bay Trail)5 4 South 60 51 5 4 Yes

Clearwater Beach Trail/Druid Rd Trail/CCC Trail Gulf Boulevard Hillsborough County Line 29 27 Central 45 35 11 11 Yes

Curlew Road/Honeymoon Island Trail Honeymoon Island Beach Oldsmar Trail (east side of canal) 38 35 North 38 29 12 9 No

Elfers Spur and Trail Pinellas Trail Pasco County Line 36 40 North 38 21 11 13 No

Florida Coast to Coast Trail Pinellas Trail Pasco County Line 45 45 North 11 6 15 15 No

Friendship Trail/Gandy Boulevard Pinellas Trail Gandy Bridge (to Tampa) 44 44 Central 11 7 15 15 No

Gulf Boulevard Clearwater Beach Pass-a-Grille Beach 33 28 Central/South 41 34 13 12 16 14 No

Hercules Ave/Greenbrier Drive/Belcher Rd Belleair Road Pinellas Trail 20 20 North 52 38 5 5 No

I-275 Trail Connections Ulmerton Rd & 4th Street S Howard Frankland Bridge Trail 46 46 Central 4 1 16 16 No

Joe's Creek Greenway Trail 54th Ave N Sawgrass Lake Park 12 12 South 57 43 10 10 Yes

Lake St George Drive/Highlands Blvd/Alderman Rd Pinellas Trail Duke Energy Trail 35 39 North 40 23 10 12 No

McMullen Booth Road/East Lake Road SR 60 Pasco County Line 18 16 North 52 40 4 3 No

Oldsmar Trail S Bayview Blvd Duke Energy Trail 30 34 North 44 30 8 8 No

Oleander Way Pasadena Avenue S Pinellas Trail 4 5 South 64 50 4 5 No

Pasadena Ave S/Gulfport Blvd S/22nd Ave S Gulf Boulevard Skyway Trail 13 13 South 55 43 11 11 No

Pinellas Trail Loop (Duke Energy Trail) Gandy Blvd Tampa Road 24 22 North 50 38 6 6 No

Pinellas Trail Loop (East Lake Road) Tampa Road Keystone Road 39 38 North 35 24 13 11 No

Pinellas Trail Loop (North Bay Trail) 1st Ave SE Gandy Blvd 37 33 South 38 30 17 17 No

Pinellas Trail Loop (Pinellas Trail) Bayshore Drive SE East Lake Rd 15 14 All 54 42 2 2 3 2 12 12 No

Rosery Road/Poinsetta Rd Indian Rocks Rd Eagle Lake Park 8 10 Central 59 45 1 1 No

Skyway Trail 54th Ave S Pinellas Trail 3 3 South 64 52 3 3 No

SR 580/Main Street/Tampa Road Alt US 19 Hillsborough County Line 17 17 North 53 40 3 4 No

St. Petersburg N/S Downtown Corridor Pinellas Point S Pinellas Trail Loop (North Bay Trail) 11 6 South 58 48 9 6 No

Sunset Point Road/Main Street Alt US 19 Bayshore Drive 10 11 North 58 45 1 1 No

Trinity Trail Pinellas Trail Pasco County Line 42 42 North 26 15 14 14 No

Ulmerton Road Duke Energy Trail Howard Frankland Bridge Trail 32 32 Central 43 30 12 13 No

Walsingham Road Gulf Boulevard Pinellas Trail 28 26 Central 47 35 10 10 No

Bayway Trail South Mullet Key Pinellas Bayway South 43 43 South 15 10 19 19 No

Pinellas Point Dr S / Roy Hanna Dr S 31st St S St. Petersburg N/S Downtown Corridor 27 29 South 47 34 14 15 No

Nebraska Ave / Hermosa Dr Pinellas Trail Loop (Pinellas Trail) Omaha St 26 30 North 48 33 7 7 No


10. SPOTLight Emphasis Areas Update

SUMMARY

Forward Pinellas staff will provide a brief update on the status of activities related to the three SPOTlight emphasis areas.

• Vision for U.S. Highway 19 Corridor

• Gateway Area Master Plan

• Enhancing Beach Access

ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: None Required; Informational Item Only


11. A.-D. BPAC Business

A. Pinellas Trail Guidebook Update In the past, the Pinellas County Planning Department provided green map booklets, resembling a “AAA Triptik” free of charge to the public. Due to the cost of printing/binding/assembly, these booklets were discontinued, and the current version of the Discover Pinellas Trails and Bicycle Lanes Guide was created. The new guide provides more information than the previous version, with safety education, Trail history highlights, advocacy organizations, information about the Florida Trail Coast-to-Coast Connector Trail, popular destinations, plus additional resources. The green guidebooks included detailed maps with street names, convenient stores, restaurants, public restrooms, hotels/motels, parks, bike shops, water fountains, public bus stops, places of interest, and much more. During the summer break, staff was approached with a proposed project to provide detailed maps of the Pinellas Trail. The BPAC will have an opportunity to discuss this proposed project.

B. Florida Greenways & Trails Council & Foundation The Florida Greenways & Trails Council held its summer meeting on Wednesday, July 31 and Thursday, August 1 in Delightful Dunedin. The Council was established “to advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on greenway and trail related issues, promote intergovernmental cooperation and private partnerships for developing the greenways and trails system, recommend priorities for critical links in the system, and provide funding recommendations for developing and managing the system.” Our BPAC Vice Chair is the current Chair for the Council, and our Chairman is the current Vice-Chair. An update will be provided at this time. Attachment: Florida Greenways and Trails Council Meeting Agenda

C. Florida Bicycle Association (FBA) The Florida Bicycle Association (FBA) was created in 1997 as an advocacy organization focused on protecting and improving the bicycling environment and policies in Florida. The FBA actively supports legislative efforts in Tallahassee that improve policies for cyclists, and partners with FDOT and many other agencies with safety education for all roadway users. For more information, see the website, floridabicycle.org. Vice Chair Becky Afonso, who is also the FBA Executive Director, will provide an update regarding FBA for the BPAC.

D. Pinellas Trails, Inc. A representative from Pinellas Trails, Inc. may take this opportunity to provide updated information for the BPAC.

Florida Greenways and Trails Council Agenda

Date 7/31/19 | Location Holiday Inn Express & Suites Clearwater North/Dunedin

Agenda Item Presenter

Welcome and Introductions – 9:00am Becky Afonso - FGTC Chair

Approve Agenda Approve Draft Meeting Summary September 14, 2018 - Introduce New Council Members

Becky Afonso

Office of Greenways and Trails & Division of Recreation and Parks UpdateDoug Alderson– OGT Assistant Bureau Chief & Parks Small – Assistant Director

Pinellas County Update

Joan Rice – Multi-Modal Safety, Pinellas County Traffic Engineering & Brian Smith – Vice-Chair, FGTC

Welcome from City of Dunedin City of Dunedin

City of Dunedin UpdateBob Ironsmith – Economic Development, Housing & CRA Director

Outdoor Recreation and Health Michael Nachef – Government Relations Director, Lee Health

Hillsborough County Update Monica Martin – Trails Planner

Plan Hillsborough Regional Update Wade Reynolds – Senior Planner

Lunch Break

Conservation Florida Traci Deen – Executive Director

Bike Florida Update Joy Hancock – Executive Director

DOT Region 7 Update

Alex Henry/Robin Birdsong – Region 7 Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator/SUN Trail Program Manager

Public Comment

Adjourn – 2:30 Becky Afonso

Florida Greenways and Trails Council Agenda

Date 8/1/19 | Location Holiday Inn Express & Suites Clearwater North/Dunedin

Agenda Item Presenter

Welcome – 8:30am Becky Afonso

C2C Databook UpdateKatie Bernier & Donald Morgan – OGT Regional Coordinators

Trail Town Discussion Sam Browne- OGT Bureau Chief

Council Member Updates Council

Public Comment

Next Meeting Location Council

Adjourn – 11:15 Becky Afonso


12. Agency Reports

The BPAC is tasked with reviewing and advising Forward Pinellas on bicycle and pedestrian-related system development, and related issues and priorities. The Committee also may assist communities with development of bikeway and pedestrian facilities, recommend safer bicycling and walking provisions, and promote a safer roadway environment. Updated information on the following programs or projects of interest to the BPAC will be provided at the meeting.

• Pinellas Trail Loop/Duke Energy Trail (North & South Gaps)

• Clearwater Bicycle Pedestrian Program

• Largo Bicycle Pedestrian Program

• St. Petersburg Bicycle Pedestrian Program

• FDOT District 7

• Pinellas Trail Security Task Force (PTSTF)

The PTSTF is a collaborative of law enforcement agencies responsible for patrolling sections of the Pinellas Trail. The PTSTF meets quarterly to coordinate effective strategies to improve the safety and security of Trail users. The next meeting of the PTSTF is scheduled for Tuesday, October 8, 2019.

ATTACHMENT(S): Pinellas Trail Security Task Force (PTSTF) July 9, 2019 Agenda

ACTION: None Required, Informational Item Only

PINELLAS TRAIL SECURITY TASK FORCE (PTSTF) MEETING AGENDA

July 9, 2019 – 9:00 a.m. Pinellas County Emergency Services Center, Room 130

12490 Ulmerton Road, Largo, FL 33774 (Telephone: 727-582-2000)


1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 9, 2019

3. ADVANTAGE PINELLAS: TRESPASS WARNINGS ON THE PINELLAS TRAIL

4. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM PINELLAS TRAIL PARK RANGER

5. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AGENCY REPORTS

Sheriff’s Office

Belleair

Clearwater

Gulfport

Largo

St. Petersburg

Tarpon Springs

Animal Services

Public Safety Services

Pinellas County Risk Management

Volunteer Patrol Programs and Updates

6. REPORT ON TRAIL USER COUNT DATA

7. PINELLAS TRAIL USERS SURVEY 2019

8. REPORT ON TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

9. REPORT ON TRAIL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

10. OTHER BUSINESS

11. ADJOURNMENT

NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES - IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE E-MAIL YOUR INCIDENT/OFFENSE REPORT TO SUSAN MILLER [email protected],

IF YOU WOULD PREFER, YOU CAN FAX THE REPORT TO THE PINELLAS COUNTY MPO at (727) 464-8212. THANK YOU.

NEXT PTSTF MEETING – OCTOBER 8, 2019

Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or family status. Persons who require special accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act or persons who require translation services (free of charge) should contact the Office of Human Rights, 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 300, Clearwater, Florida 33756; [(727) 464-4062 (V/TDD)] at least seven days prior to the meeting.

Appeals: Certain public meetings result in actions taken by the public board, commission or agency that may be appealed; in such case persons are advised that, if they decide to appeal any decision made at a public meeting/hearing, they will need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purposes, they may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.

mailto:[email protected]

Pinellas Trail Security Task Force – July 9, 2019

2. Approval of Minutes – April 9, 2019

SUMMARY

The summary minutes of the April 9, 2019 Pinellas Trail Security Task Force meeting are attached. ATTACHMENTS: Pinellas Trail Security Task Force Summary Minutes – April 9, 2019 ACTION: Approval of April Meeting Summary

PINELLAS TRAIL SECURITY TASK FORCE MEETING Summary

April 9, 2019 The following is a summary of the April 9, 2019 Forward Pinellas - Pinellas Trail Security Task Force meeting, which was held in the Pinellas County Public Safety Services Department, Room 130, 12490 Ulmerton Road, Largo, Florida 33774. The Security Task Force meets at least quarterly during the year. IN ATTENDANCE Officer Ron Wolfson, Chairman St. Petersburg Police Department & Volunteer Coordinator Officer Zachary Cissell St. Petersburg Police Department Chief Rick Doyle Belleair Police Department Officer Allison Daniels Belleair Police Department Officer John Ulrich Tarpon Springs Police Department Gary Brown Pinellas County Animal Services Larry Thomas Pinellas County Animal Services Lyle Fowler PC Parks & Conservation Resources (PCR) Craig Queen Pinellas County EMS & Fire Administration Greg D’Amario Pinellas County Risk Management Joan Rice Pinellas County Public Works – Traffic Division Tom Rill Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources William Shaw Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources Bert Valery Pinellas Trails, Inc/BPAC Stu Schwartzreich Auxiliary Ranger Volunteer Bob Young Auxiliary Ranger Volunteer Bill Romanski Auxiliary Ranger Volunteer Phyllis Romanski Auxiliary Ranger Volunteer Susan J. Miller Forward Pinellas Staff Maria Kelly Forward Pinellas Staff

1. CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS Chairman Ronald Wolfson, St. Petersburg Police Officer, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Self-introductions were provided.

2. APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY – January 8, 2019

The summary from the January 8, 2019 meeting was approved, with no corrections.

3. PRESENTATION: ADVANTAGE PINELLAS: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Ms. Susan Miller, Forward Pinellas Staff, shared a presentation with the committee regarding the Active Transportation Plan for Pinellas County currently being developed in conjunction with the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The focus is to develop a prioritized set of projects that can feasibly be constructed over an eight to ten year period. The project consultant has begun collecting information and data regarding key destinations, existing/planned facilities, socioeconomic data, Trail counts, municipal bicycle/pedestrian plans and preliminary information on the Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) experienced by bicyclists in Pinellas County. One of the tools developed for public participation was an online “survey” designed to accept information from the public on travel to common bicycle and/or pedestrian destinations, places of interest and to collect general comments. Ms. Miller demonstrated how to access and use the interactive mapping tool. The link to the Active

PINELLAS TRAIL SECURITY TASK FORCE MEETING SUMMARY April 9, 2019

Page 2

Transportation Plan Survey was distributed to everyone in attendance for their assistance in increasing public participation for bike/ped travel comments, popular destinations, places of interest, infrastructure needs and/or hazards. Discussion ensued where questions were taken and appropriately answered.

4. QUARTERLY REPORT FROM PINELLAS TRAIL PARK RANGER Ranger Tom Rill, Parks and Conservation Resources (PCR), reported several incidents related to the Trail over the last quarter. In January, Tarpon Springs Police Department assisted with prohibited camping at the US 19 underpass; Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) assisted with a transient camp north of the Park Boulevard overpass; Largo Police Department assisted with prohibited camping at the West Bay overpass. In February, a warning was issued against dumped vegetation south of 38th Avenue at emergency 911 marker PT192, and notified the PCSO of violation of a trespass warning at the same location; Largo Police Department assisted with another prohibited camping at the West Bay overpass; a volunteer Ranger encountered a bike accident at the Leach Property Trail parking lot in Seminole. The subject refused EMS response; PCSO assisted with a disorderly subject at Sage Avenue in Crystal Beach. The subject was trespassed from the Trail for 6 months. An email inquiry was sent to Largo Code Enforcement regarding a leaning wall between Walsingham Road and 102nd Avenue; Largo Police Department assisted with an abandon scooter near Taylor Park at emergency 911 marker PT360. In March, Belleair Police Department assisted with an abandoned backpack and firearm at emergency 911 marker PT397; two written warnings were issued for dumped vegetation in Seminole near Orange Blossom Drive; St. Petersburg Police Department assisted with prohibited camping between 20th Street S and 22nd Street S; Largo Police Department assisted with an abandoned golf cart at 8th Avenue S. There was a report of a subject with a firearm who was arrested by Clearwater Police Department in the area of Nursery Road.

5. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND AGENCY REPORTS A. Sheriff’s Office

Pinellas County Sheriff Deputy Eric Gibson was unable to attend and no report was received.

B. Belleair Officer Allison Daniels reported 64 stops from January 1st, 2019 to date; of the 64 stops, 12 subjects had burglary history, 11 subjects with theft history; four subjects with auto theft history and nine subjects with resisting an officer.

C. Clearwater Ms. Miller received a report from the Clearwater Police Department citing 56 incidents that occurred near or on the Trail of which 17 were directed patrols, two drunk pedestrians and one road rage incident, suspicious persons/vehicles, two auto burglaries, three accidents with injuries and four without injuries.

D. Gulfport

A report was received from the Gulfport Police Department noting no incidents during the quarter.

E. Largo Officer V. Tran let us know that he would be unable to attend but sent in a report indicating 23 calls received on or around the Trail. Two reports were taken and one suicidal subject.


Page 3

F. St. Petersburg

St. Petersburg Police Officer Zack Cissell reported 90 calls for service with a majority of those using the Trail as the geographical marker for traffic stops. 15 officer initiated calls from direct patrols to citizen contacts. Trail trespassers were arrested and on April 7th, there was a crash reported on the Trail between a dirt bike motorcyclist and two bicyclists resulting in significant injuries. Motorcyclist received several citations.

G. Tarpon Springs Officer John Ulrich was in attendance and said that the Ranger had covered his report.

H. Animal Services

Mr. Gary Brown reported two loose dogs were sited on the Trail and one abandoned dog.

I. Public Safety Services Mr. Craig Queen, Pinellas County EMS & Fire Administration, shared a report that unfortunately omitted the January information. 29 actual calls using the Pinellas Trail marker as reference location points.

J. Pinellas County Risk Management

Mr. Greg D’Amario, Pinellas County Risk Management had nothing to report.

K. Volunteer Patrol Programs and Updates Chair Wolfson stated that the City of St. Petersburg has a new group of volunteers to assist with the homeless population, in which they reference the Pinellas Trail markers in their reports.

6. AUTOMATIC TRAIL COUNTERS

Ms. Miller briefly discussed the automatic counter reports, which are included in the agenda packet, along with the 2018 Year End Summary report.

7. PINELLAS TRAIL USERS SURVEY 2019 Ms. Miller discussed the upcoming Pinellas Trail Users survey and asked for volunteers to assist in gathering information to help us find out how and why people use the Pinellas Trail. A sign-up sheet was passed around.

8. REPORT ON TRAIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY Ms. Miller reviewed the Trail Construction Activity report with the Security Task Force. She noted the electronic agenda included active links for additional construction information. The North Gap and the South Gap for the Duke Energy Trail: The North Loop Gap Countryside is in design/build phase and construction should begin soon and be completed in 2020. The South Loop Phase 3 & 4, Haines Bayshore to Ulmerton Road to 126th Avenue will connect to the North Bay Trail; Public Works has applied for SUNTrail funding for some locations while they investigate right-of-way in others. The Pinellas Trail Loop connection at NE Coachman/Old Coachman Road and the Ream Wilson Clearwater Trail is scheduled for construction in 2018, to be completed by end of 2019, along with bridge widening and improvements over Alligator Creek. Pinellas Trail Loop – Duke Energy Trail, NE Coachman to Sunset Point: Penny for Pinellas funded: construction 2019-20. 71st Street Trail Connector, Pinellas Trail to 38th Avenue; Design 2022, Construction 2024. The San Martin Trail and bridge connection, includes a PD&E study including sea level rise components. Construction has not


Page 4

yet been funded. The design of the Courtney Campbell Trail Overpass at Bayshore Boulevard has been funded under the SUNTrail program, with construction scheduled in 2024. FDOT currently shared the proposed design with the Forward Pinellas advisory committees and will attempt to move this project up on the priority list. FDOT will included a trail with the new Howard Frankland Bridge construction in the Build-Design project; estimated construction in 2020. A suggestion was made to add sharrows at the Gandy Bridge connection west of the bridge. The Orange Street Pedestrian Overpass has been completed. The Harn Boulevard Overpass design is underway with construction scheduled for 2020/2021. Bayway Trail South, SR679 and Tierra Verde Bridge Replacement, the trail is to be included in the bridge construction, construction late 2018-2021. Treasure Island Causeway project, the City of St. Petersburg has been coordinating with the City of Treasure Island to connect the Pinellas Trail along the Treasure Island Causeway. Phase I has been completed, Phase II has been cancelled. The last phase of the Druid Trail, Glen Oaks Park to the Duke Energy Trail is nearly complete, and should be open to the public soon. The Druid Trail heads west and connects to the Memorial Causeway Bridge and out to Clearwater Beach. Honeymoon Island State Park Trail Extension, going into Honeymoon Island has been completed. The Oldsmar Trail, Phase 6 design is underway with construction scheduled for 2019, funding through Penny for Pinellas.

9. REPORT ON TRAIL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES Mr. Bert Valery announced there would be a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to discuss the alignment of the Pinellas Trail Loop North Gap after a few citizens have been spoken out against the current proposals, and have requested the alignment be modified to bypass their neighborhood.

10. OTHER BUSINESS

The 2019 meeting schedule for all of the Forward Pinellas advisory committee meetings was included in the agenda packet.

11. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Wolfson adjourned the meeting at 10:43 a.m. The next PTSTF meeting is scheduled for July 9, 2019.


3. Presentation: Trespass Warnings on the Pinellas Trail

SUMMARY

The Pinellas Trail is owned by Pinellas County, with the right-of-way varying from about 60-feet to 100-feet. The Trail is open to the public during daylight hours. Pets must be kept on a leash no greater than six feet at all times. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited (without a waiver from the County). With limited exceptions, motorized vehicles are prohibited on the trail. Trail users are expected to behave in a safe and courteous manner at all times. Definitions, policies and additional specific information regarding permitted and prohibited activities are provided in the County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 90. (https://library.municode.com/fl/pinellas_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIPICOCO_CH90PACORE) Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources (PCR) currently manages the Florida Coast to Coast Trail (five-miles), the Honeymoon Island Trail along the Dunedin Causeway (two-miles), the Elfers Spur (one-mile), and more than 48-miles of the Pinellas Trail Loop. When the North Gap of the Loop and the Sunset Point to Spectrum Field segments are constructed, PCR will be responsible for more than 63-miles of trails. The subject of trespassing has been a recurring topic over the past several Security Task Force meetings. County policy allows park rangers to issue trespass warnings, which they use judiciously only when there is blatant disregard for the rules of the Trail. By their very nature, trespass warnings can be challenging. The issues are further complicated by the number of agencies and jurisdictions involved in patrol, safety and security along all of the managed trails. Some of the challenges include the lack of physical address for the Trail, the jurisdictional boundaries over which each law enforcement agency has authority, and the necessary coordination between responsible agencies and their various policies. This item will include discussion of trespass policies, jurisdiction, and other issues to further ensure the personal safety for trail users as well as staff.

ATTACHMENT(S): None ACTION: Based on Discussion

https://library.municode.com/fl/pinellas_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIPICOCO_CH90PACORE


6. Report on Monthly Trail User Count Data SUMMARY

This item will include the monthly data summary report for the automatic trail counters along the Pinellas Trail. ATTACHMENT: Pinellas Trail User Count Data Summary Reports:

March 2019 April 2019 May 2019

ACTION: No Action Required, informational item only

Pinellas Trail User Count Data Summary Automated Trail Counter Data Collection Period:

March 1 – March 31, 2019 (31 days)

Total Usage

31-Day Count Total: 172,043

Daily Average Users: 5,550

Highest Daily Totals:

#1 – Saturday, March 9th (Dunedin - 2,414)

#2 – Saturday, March 9th (Palm Harbor - 1,564)

#3 – Saturday, March 23rd (Bay Pines - 1,224)

.

Counter Locations

Monthly Trail Users by Counter Location

Weekday & Weekend Profile Trail User Mode Split

East Lake Tarpon:

Palm Harbor:

Dunedin:

Clearwater:

Walsingham:

Seminole:

Bay Pines:

St. Petersburg:

Source: Forward Pinellas March 2019National Weather Service: March 2019

East Lake Tarpon

Palm Harbor

Dunedin

Clearwater

Walsingham

Seminole

Bay Pines

St. Petersburg

3% 97%

10% 90%

20% 80%

21% 79%

13% 87%

30% 70%

35% 65%

37% 63%

https://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=tbw


April 1 – April 30, 2019 (30 days)

Total Usage




#1 – Saturday, April 27th (Dunedin - 1,478)

#2 – Sunday, April 7th (Palm Harbor - 1,313)

#3 – Sunday, April 7th (Bay Pines - 1,068)

.

Counter Locations



East Lake Tarpon:

Palm Harbor:

Dunedin:

Clearwater:

Walsingham:

Seminole:

Bay Pines:

St. Petersburg:

Source: Forward Pinellas April 2019National Weather Service: April 2019

East Lake Tarpon

Palm Harbor

Dunedin

Clearwater

Walsingham

Seminole

Bay Pines

St. Petersburg

3% 97%

9% 91%

14% 86%

21% 79%

12% 88%

29% 71%

29% 71%

39% 61%

https://w2.weather.gov/climate/getclimate.php?wfo=tbw


May 1 – May 31, 2019 (31 days)

Total Usage




#1 – Saturday, May 18th (Dunedin - 1,283)

#2 – Wednesday, May 29th (Palm Harbor - 1,238)

#3 – Monday, May 27th (Bay Pines - 1,068)

.

Counter Locations



East Lake Tarpon:

Palm Harbor:

Dunedin:

Clearwater:

Walsingham:

Seminole:

Bay Pines:

St. Petersburg:

Source: Forward Pinellas May 2019National Weather Service: May 2019

East Lake Tarpon

Palm Harbor

Dunedin

Clearwater

Walsingham

Seminole

Bay Pines

St. Petersburg

1% 99%

12% 88%

5% 95%

34% 66%

11% 89%

23% 77%

22% 78%

39% 61%

https://w2.weather.gov/climate/


7. Pinellas Trail Users Survey 2019

SUMMARY

The 2019 Pinellas Trail Users Survey was conducted on Friday, April 26 and Saturday, April 27 at six different locations along the Trail. Many volunteers assisted with the survey, along with several Forward Pinellas staff members and County employees. An online survey was developed to supplement the in-field surveys to increase participation. Even though thunderstorms discouraged many people from using the Trail on Friday, the first day of the field survey, nearly 1,000 surveys were collected over the entire weekend. The online survey was available for two weeks and another 500 participated online. From the 1,513 total responses, approximately two-thirds bicycled on the Trail, one-fourth walked, and about one-tenth jogged or ran. About 60% of respondents reside within 2-miles of the Trail, an increase of 4% from the 2014 survey, and 12% from the 1999 survey. Some other preliminary 2019 results:

One-third of respondents used the Trail about 3-4 times each week, just over one-fourth used it 5-7 days each week, and one-fifth used it one day or less; 18% used the Trail about twice a week;

One-half (49%) of respondents traveled 2-10 miles each visit; 18% travel 2 miles or less; 34% travel 10 miles or more each visit;

84% would use other trails countywide;

39% use the Trail about 1-2 hours at a time, 30% use it 2-4 hours, 19% use it 30 minutes to one hour;

95% feel safe on the Trail;

80% were year-round residents, 19% seasonal or visitors.

The majority of respondents (41%) were between 50 and 64 years of age, 31% were 65 or older;

53% were male, 47% female. The results continue to be analyzed, and additional information will be provided when the report is complete.

ATTACHMENT(S): 2019 Pinellas Trail Survey Google Forms ACTION: None, Informational Only

Pinellas Trail Users Survey 2019

Zip Codes

OTHER

CANADA 23

UNITED KINGDOM 3

Unknown 6

STATES REPRESENTED


8. Trail Construction Activity Report

TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

July 2019

Pinellas Trail North Loop Gap

Countryside

Enterprise Rd to Chesnut Sr. Park; SUN Trail;

Design-Build Underway, Est. Complete 2020 (link)

Pinellas Trail South Loop Phase 3 & 4 Haines Bayshore to Ulmerton Rd to 126th Ave;

Applied for SUN Trail Funding; Construction 2024

Pinellas Trail Loop - Ream Wilson

Connection (Old Coachman Bridge)

Trail widening and bridge improvements over

Alligator Creek; Construction 2019 (link)

Pinellas Trail Loop – Duke Energy Trail NE Coachman to Sunset Point; Penny for Pinellas

funded; Construction 2019/20 (link)

71st Street Trail Connector Pinellas Trail to 38th Avenue N; Design 2022,

Construction 2024

San Martin Bridge & Trail connection PD&E in Late 2018 (link)

Courtney Campbell Trail Overpass Trail Overpass at S.R. 60/Bayshore Blvd; SUN Trail;

Design Underway; Construction 2024

Howard Frankland Bridge Trail FDOT include trail with new bridge construction;

Design-Build Project; Est. Construction 2020 (link)

Orange Street Overpass Pedestrian Overpass has been Completed

Harn Boulevard Overpass Pedestrian Overpass;

Design Underway; Construction 2021 (link)

Bayway Trail South SR 679 & Tierra Verde Bridge Replacement

Construction late 2019 – 2021 (link)

Treasure Island Causeway Project Phase I Completed February 2018;

Phase II – Project on Hold March 2019

Druid Trail Ph IV Glen Oaks Park to Duke Energy Trail has been

Completed

Honeymoon Island State Park

Trail Extension Separated Bike Trail has been Completed

Oldsmar Trail Phase 6 Douglas Rd (Hayes Rd to Race Track Rd, approx.

1.2 miles) Design underway; Constr 2019

http://www.pinellascounty.org/northloop/

http://www.pinellascounty.org/publicworks/pdf/ream_wilson_pinellas_trail_improvements.pdf

http://www.pinellascounty.org/publicworks/pdf/duke-energy-trail.pdf

http://www.pinellascounty.org/sanmartinbridge/default.htm

http://www.tampabaynext.com/projects/howard-frankland-bridge/

http://www.fdottampabay.com/project/288/256881-5-52-01

http://www.fdottampabay.com/project/238/410755-2-52-01

www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2019/00453

ENROLLED

CS/CS/HB 453, Engrossed 1 2019 Legislature

CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

hb0453-04-er

Page 1 of 7

F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

1

An act relating to mobility devices and motorized 2

scooters; amending s. 316.003, F.S.; defining the term 3

"micromobility device"; revising the definition of the 4

term "motorized scooter"; conforming a cross-5

reference; amending s. 316.1995, F.S.; conforming a 6

provision to changes made by the act; amending s. 7

316.2128, F.S.; providing that the operator of a 8

motorized scooter or micromobility device has all of 9

the rights and duties applicable to the rider of a 10

bicycle, except the duties imposed by specified 11

provisions that by their nature do not apply; 12

providing for construction; exempting a motorized 13

scooter or micromobility device from certain 14

registration, insurance, and licensing requirements; 15

providing that a person is not required to have a 16

driver license to operate a motorized scooter or 17

micromobility device; requiring a person who offers 18

motorized scooters or micromobility devices for hire 19

to be responsible for securing all such devices 20

located in any area of the state where a certain 21

warning has been issued by the National Weather 22

Service; deleting specified requirements for the sale 23

of motorized scooters; amending s. 316.2225, F.S.; 24

exempting electric personal assistive mobility devices 25

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 2 of 7


and motorized scooters from certain emblem 26

requirements; amending s. 320.01, F.S.; revising the 27

definition of the term "motor vehicle"; amending s. 28

655.960, F.S.; conforming a cross-reference; providing 29

an effective date. 30

31

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 32

33

Section 1. Present subsections (38) through (101) of 34

section 316.003, Florida Statutes, are redesignated as 35

subsections (39) through (102), respectively, a new subsection 36

(38) is added to that section, and present subsections (44) and 37

(59) of that section are amended, to read: 38

316.003 Definitions.—The following words and phrases, when 39

used in this chapter, shall have the meanings respectively 40

ascribed to them in this section, except where the context 41

otherwise requires: 42

(38) MICROMOBILITY DEVICE.—Any motorized transportation 43

device made available for private use by reservation through an 44

online application, website, or software for point-to-point 45

trips and which is not capable of traveling at a speed greater 46

than 20 miles per hour on level ground. This term includes 47

motorized scooters and bicycles as defined in this chapter. 48

(45)(44) MOTORIZED SCOOTER.—Any vehicle or micromobility 49

device that is powered by a motor with or without not having a 50

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 3 of 7


seat or saddle for the use of the rider, which is designed to 51

travel on not more than three wheels, and which is not capable 52

of propelling the vehicle at a speed greater than 20 30 miles 53

per hour on level ground. 54

(60)(59) PRIVATE ROAD OR DRIVEWAY.—Except as otherwise 55

provided in paragraph (82)(b) (81)(b), any privately owned way 56

or place used for vehicular travel by the owner and those having 57

express or implied permission from the owner, but not by other 58

persons. 59

Section 2. Section 316.1995, Florida Statutes, is amended 60

to read: 61

316.1995 Driving upon sidewalk or bicycle path.— 62

(1) Except as provided in s. 316.008, or s. 316.212(8), or 63

s. 316.2128, a person may not drive any vehicle other than by 64

human power upon a bicycle path, sidewalk, or sidewalk area, 65

except upon a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway. 66

(2) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic 67

infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in 68

chapter 318. 69

(3) This section does not apply to motorized wheelchairs. 70

Section 3. Section 316.2128, Florida Statutes, is amended 71

to read: 72

316.2128 Micromobility devices, Operation of motorized 73

scooters, and miniature motorcycles; requirements for sales.— 74

(1) The operator of a motorized scooter or micromobility 75

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 4 of 7


device has all of the rights and duties applicable to the rider 76

of a bicycle under s. 316.2065, except the duties imposed by s. 77

316.2065(2), (3)(b), and (3)(c), which by their nature do not 78

apply. However, this section may not be construed to prevent a 79

local government, through the exercise of its powers under s. 80

316.008, from adopting an ordinance governing the operation of 81

micromobility devices and motorized scooters on streets, 82

highways, sidewalks, and sidewalk areas under the local 83

government's jurisdiction. 84

(2) A motorized scooter or micromobility device is not 85

required to satisfy the registration and insurance requirements 86

of s. 320.02 or the licensing requirements of s. 316.605. 87

(3) A person is not required to have a driver license to 88

operate a motorized scooter or micromobility device. 89

(4) A person who offers motorized scooters or 90

micromobility devices for hire is responsible for securing all 91

such devices located in any area of the state where an active 92

tropical storm or hurricane warning has been issued by the 93

National Weather Service. 94

(5)(1) A person who engages in the business of, serves in 95

the capacity of, or acts as a commercial seller of motorized 96

scooters or miniature motorcycles in this state must prominently 97

display at his or her place of business a notice that such 98

vehicles are not legal to operate on public roads, may not be 99

registered as motor vehicles, and may not be operated on 100

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 5 of 7


sidewalks unless authorized by an ordinance enacted pursuant to 101

s. 316.008(7)(a) or s. 316.212(8). The required notice must also 102

appear in all forms of advertising offering motorized scooters 103

or miniature motorcycles for sale. The notice and a copy of this 104

section must also be provided to a consumer prior to the 105

consumer's purchasing or becoming obligated to purchase a 106

motorized scooter or a miniature motorcycle. 107

(6)(2) Any person selling or offering a motorized scooter 108

or a miniature motorcycle for sale in violation of this section 109

commits an unfair and deceptive trade practice as defined in 110

part II of chapter 501. 111

Section 4. Subsection (7) of section 316.2225, Florida 112

Statutes, is amended to read: 113

316.2225 Additional equipment required on certain 114

vehicles.—In addition to other equipment required in this 115

chapter, the following vehicles shall be equipped as herein 116

stated under the conditions stated in s. 316.217. 117

(7) On every slow-moving vehicle or equipment, animal-118

drawn vehicle, or other machinery designed for use and speeds 119

less than 25 miles per hour, excluding electric personal 120

assistive mobility devices and motorized scooters, but including 121

all road construction and maintenance machinery except when 122

engaged in actual construction or maintenance work either 123

guarded by a flagger or a clearly visible warning sign, which 124

normally travels or is normally used at a speed of less than 25 125

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 6 of 7


miles per hour and which is operated on a public highway, there 126

must be: 127

(a) a triangular slow-moving vehicle emblem SMV as 128

described in, and displayed as provided in, this subsection 129

paragraph (b). 130

(a) The requirement of the emblem shall be in addition to 131

any other equipment required by law. The emblem shall not be 132

displayed on objects which are customarily stationary in use 133

except while being transported on the roadway of any public 134

highway of this state. 135

(b) The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 136

shall adopt such rules and regulations as are required to carry 137

out the purpose of this section. The requirements of such rules 138

and regulations shall incorporate the current specifications for 139

SMV emblems of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 140

Section 5. Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 141

320.01, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 142

320.01 Definitions, general.—As used in the Florida 143

Statutes, except as otherwise provided, the term: 144

(1) "Motor vehicle" means: 145

(a) An automobile, motorcycle, truck, trailer, 146

semitrailer, truck tractor and semitrailer combination, or any 147

other vehicle operated on the roads of this state, used to 148

transport persons or property, and propelled by power other than 149

muscular power, but the term does not include traction engines, 150

ENROLLED



hb0453-04-er

Page 7 of 7


road rollers, motorized scooters, micromobility devices, 151

personal delivery devices and mobile carriers as defined in s. 152

316.003, special mobile equipment as defined in s. 316.003, 153

vehicles that run only upon a track, bicycles, swamp buggies, or 154

mopeds. 155

Section 6. Subsection (1) of section 655.960, Florida 156

Statutes, is amended to read: 157

655.960 Definitions; ss. 655.960-655.965.—As used in this 158

section and ss. 655.961-655.965, unless the context otherwise 159

requires: 160

(1) "Access area" means any paved walkway or sidewalk 161

which is within 50 feet of any automated teller machine. The 162

term does not include any street or highway open to the use of 163

the public, as defined in s. 316.003(82)(a) or (b) s. 164

316.003(81)(a) or (b), including any adjacent sidewalk, as 165

defined in s. 316.003. 166

Section 7. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law. 167


13. A.-D. Other Business

A. Membership

There is currently one vacancy on the BPAC membership list. There is a vacancy for a Pinellas County

Health Department representative. There are no citizen vacancies.

ATTACHMENT: BPAC Membership List

ACTION: None Required, Informational Item Only

B. Correspondence, Publications, Articles of Interest

Dangerous by Design – 2019

Dutch City Became Cyclist Paradise – July 05, 2019

Howard Frankland Bridge Wrong-Way Driving – June 19, 2019

StreetsBlog: Building a Safer Mid-Block Crossing – June 14, 2019

StreetsBlog: States Not Trying to Reduce Traffic Deaths – June 13, 2019

StreetsBlog Vancouver Builds a Better Bike Lane – June 10, 2019

Kids Gifted Adaptative Bikes, Virginia – August 5, 2019

Pinellas Trail Usage Report – May 2019

Pinellas Trail Usage Report – June 2019

Pinellas County Fatalities Report – July 2019

C. Suggestions for Future Agenda Topics

This item is provided to allow Committee members to suggest topics for future BPAC agendas.

D. Other

If any member has other business to discuss, they may address it under this item.

Rev 08/1/2019

BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP LIST Voting St. Petersburg Area (St. Pete/Gulfport/So Pasadena/Tierra Verde)

1. Mike Milvain (06/13/18) 2. Kimberly Cooper (10/13/99) (reappointed 5/9/18) 3. Charles Johnson (06/14/17)

Clearwater Area 4. Chip Haynes (04/13/11) 5. Robert Yunk (02/09/05) 6. Win Dermody (03/12/14)

Dunedin Area 7. Charles Martin (04/08/09)

Pinellas Park and Mid-County 8. Ronald Rasmussen (12/13/06) 9. Byron Virgil Hall, Jr., (12/13/06)

Largo Area 10. Daniel Alejandro (10/12/16) 11. Georgia Wildrick (08/16/06)

North County Area (Tarpon Springs/Palm Harbor/Ozona/Oldsmar/Safety Harbor) 12. David Feller (07/11/18) 13. Becky Afonso (Vice Chair) (10/08/14)

At Large Area 14. Paul Kurtz (12/11/13) 15. Mike Siebel (03/14/12) 16. Brian Smith (Chairman) (12/12/12) 17. Lynn Bosco (11/14/12) 18. Steve Lasky (11/14/12) 19. Ed Hawkes (11/18/98) 20. Annette Sala (03/12/14)

Seminole Area 21. Jim Wedlake (05/12/10)

Beach Communities 22. Bert Valery (10/1983-10/1998) (reappointed 07/10/02) 23. Alan Johnson (05/09/18)

Technical Support 1. County Traffic Department (Joan Rice – representative; Gina Harvey and Casey Morse –

alternates) 2. Pinellas County Planning Department (Caroline Lanford – representative) 3. PSTA (Jacob Labutka – representative; Heather Sobush and Kristina Tranel – alternates) 4. City of Clearwater (Ric Hartman - representative) 5. City of St. Petersburg (Lucas Cruse – representative; Cheryl Stacks - alternate) 6. City of Largo (Diane Friel – representative; Katrina Lunan-Gordon - alternate) 7. City of Oldsmar (Felicia Donnelly – representative) 8. City of Pinellas Park (Derek Reeves – representative) 9. Pinellas County School System (Stephanie Carrier - representative, Cammie Weeks - alternate) 10. Pinellas County Health Department (Vacant – representative) 11. Pinellas Trails, Inc. (Scott Daniels – representative) 12. CUTR (Julie Bond - representative) 13. Safe Routes to School (Tiffany Sabiel – representative)

Sheriff's Office /Police/Law Enforcement Representatives 1. Pinellas Park Police Dept. 2. St Petersburg Police Dept. 3. Largo Police Dept. 4. Sheriff’s Office – Deputy Eric Gibson 5. Clearwater Police Dept.

Non-Voting Technical Support 14. FDOT (Alex Henry - representative) 15. County Parks and Conservation Resources (Lyle Fowler – representative; Spencer Curtis –

alternate)

*Dates signify appointment

2019 DANGEROUS BY DESIGN

When we design streets to move cars as quickly as possible instead of prioritizing the safety of all people, the consequences can be deadly, especially for people walking. Between 2008 and 2017, drivers struck and killed 5,433 people walking in Florida. Over the past decade, the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking increased by 35.4 percent nationwide, and in Florida, pedestrian deaths increased by 33.5 percent during this time period. Figure 1 shows pedestrian fatalities over the past decade in the state.

1st Most Dangerous State by the Pedestrian Danger Index (PDI)

In Dangerous by Design 2019, Smart Growth America’s biannual report on pedestrian safety, Florida ranked as the most dangerous state for people walking, using our “Pedestrian Danger Index” (PDI), which measures the number of people struck and killed while walking, controlling for population size and walking rates. Between 2008-2017, Florida received a PDI score of 182.0, compared to a national PDI of 55.3. This supplemental state report ranks the most dangerous metro areas for people walking in Florida.

Figure 1. Pedestrian Fatalities in Florida, 2008-2017

20.2%In Florida,

of vehicle-related fatalities between 2008-2017 were pedestrians

compared to 14.2% in the U.S. as a whole

OtherPedestrians

Figure 2. Pedestrians as a Share of Motor Vehicle-Related Fatalities Figure 3. State vs. National Share

FLORIDASHARE

NATIONAL SHARE

The PDI calculates how deadly it is for people to walk in a state based on the number of people struck and killed by drivers while walking, controlled for the number of people that walk to work.

Florida State Report

For more information go to: https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/Data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the U.S. Census Bureau’s

American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-year estimates

VULNERABLE POPULATIONSAlthough people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and income levels suffer the consequences of dangerous street design, some neighborhoods and groups of people bear a larger share of the burden than others. Nationwide, drivers disproportionately strike and kill older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income communities.

Sebring Orlando-Kissimmee-

Sanford

Sebastian-Vero Beach

Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach

Cape Coral-Fort Myers

JacksonvillePunta GordaLakeland-Winter Haven

North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton

Palm Bay-Melbourne-

Titusville

FLORIDA STATEWIDE PDI

NATIONAL PDI

Figure 4. Most Dangerous Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in Florida for Pedestrians

American Indian/Alaska Native

Black/African American

White, Non-Hispanic

50 & Above

Figure 5. Pedestrian Fatalities per 100,000 People

Under 20

65 & Above

75 & Above

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic/Latino

OLD

ER A

DULT

SPE

OPL

E O

F CO

LOR

FLO

RIDA

FAT

ALIT

Y RA

TE F

OR

ALL

PERS

ONS

: 2.7

3

NATI

ONA

L FA

TALI

TY R

ATE

FOR

ALL

PERS

ONS

: 1.5

5

Florida is the 29th most dangerous state for older adults. Between 2008-2017, adults over 50 were 32.3% more likely to be struck and killed while walking compared to people under 50.

Moving toward zeroThe Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) believes that one fatality is one too many. They are working to make their streets safer through the following initiatives:• FDOT adopted a Complete Streets policy in 2014 to balance the needs and safety of all people who use the street.

75 local and regional agencies in the state have also passed Complete Streets policies.• FDOT launched a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Coalition to bring together federal, state, local, and private

partners, safety advocates, and others committed to reducing traffic deaths and serious injuries.• FDOT updated its Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategic Safety Plan in 2017. • FDOT is also working in 21 priority counties to introduce targeted safety improvements for people walking and biking.For more information, visit http://www.fdot.gov/safety.

HOW UTRECHT BECAME A PARADISE FOR CYCLISTS A new short film reveals how the Dutch city reengineered itself around the bicycle, with life- and money-saving results. by Laura Bliss July 5, 2019 When you think of the world’s most bike-friendly cities, Amsterdam and Copenhagen probably come to mind first. But another contender has edged into the top tier: Utrecht, the fourth-largest and fastest-growing city in the Netherlands, where average daily bike trips number 125,000. A new short film from the transit-oriented documentary-makers at Streetfilms reveals how this city of 330,000 turned into a cyclist’s paradise. As in Nijmegen—star of yet another recent Streetfilms project—it’s all about the infrastructure. Specialized roads and parking facilities gives bike riders the upper hand over cars, which make up less than 15 percent of trips into city center. Some 60 percent happen in the saddle. For example, a new, state-of-the-art bike parking garage beneath the Utrecht Centraal train station is about to double its available spaces to 12,000, after the first 6,000 were absorbed in less than two years. Cyclists can cruise from the street down a ramp and into their spots (just like in a downtown garage for conventional vehicles), and from there, walk onto a rail platform. Elsewhere downtown, streets once meant for cars have been redesigned to prioritize bikes. A canal that was buried by a highway in the 1970s is now returning to its original form, with greenery, pedestrian pathways, and cycle tracks declaring Utrecht’s modern priorities. “You really have the idea that people are the boss of the city, not the machines,” Lott van Hooijdonk, the city’s vice mayor, says in the film. The Dafne Schippersbrug, an extraordinary multi-use bridge-path that uses the roof of an elementary school as its foundation, is further evidence of how utterly normalized cycling has become. “These things are pipe dreams in most other parts of the world,” says one unnamed neighbor. It wasn’t always this way. In the 1950s and ‘60s, the cities of the Netherlands were nearly as auto-friendly as much any other wealthy European country. But in the 1970s, the rising number of children killed in traffic sparked a wave of activism and protests, which brought attention to the folly of streets designed for cars. Rising gas prices and the environmental movement helped bolster national policies to reorient urban centers towards walking, cycling, and transit. Today, 98 percent of Utrecht households own at least one bike, according to the film; half own three or more. Nationally, bikes now outnumber people. “All politicians now take cycling seriously,” Mark Wagenbuur, a Dutch bike activist and blogger, told the New York Times in 2017. www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/07/bicycle-friendly-city-utrecht-streetfilms-bike-lanes/593320/?utm_source=newsletter&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_campaign=citylab-daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email

https://vimeo.com/344373585

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/07/it-takes-more-than-bollards-to-build-a-bike-paradise/533607/

https://www.nextarchitects.com/en/projects/dafne_schippers_bicycle_bridge

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/europe/bicycling-utrecht-dutch-love-bikes-worlds-largest-bike-parking-garages.html

https://vimeo.com/344373585

BUILDING A SAFER MID-BLOCK CROSSING

by Angie Schmitt June 14, 2019

Pedestrians deserve a safe places to cross the street. But a mid-block crossing with just some paint isn’t going to cut it.

Various studies have found compliance rates between 16 and 32 percent for drivers yielding to pedestrians — as required by law — at crosswalks that don’t have a traffic light or stop sign. In a word: terrible.

We’re in the midst of a pedestrian safety crisis, with deaths soaring to more than 6,000 a year. It’s time to rethink and improve the mid-block crossing. After all, almost three in four pedestrians who are killed were crossing at mid-block.

Fortunately, there are some good, low-cost innovations cities can use to make that safer. Below, we’ve highlighted some cheap, effective upgrades for mid-block crossings, listed in order from lowest-cost to most substantial.

Signs within a crosswalk Those little yellow “State Law Stop for Pedestrian” signs that sit right in the middle of the street are technically called R1-6 signs. They’re cheap and easy. But they shouldn’t be underestimated. They work.

A research team at the University of Minnesota tested these last year at a handful of unsignalized intersections in St. Paul — and yielding increased significantly. Such signs work even better if multiples are installed, both in the center of the lane and on the outside, researcher Nichole Morris found. This is called a “gateway treatment.”

These start at around $65 on the internet. But they are prone to damage and require a small budget to replace them every now and then. But that’s a small price to pay to protect people from getting killed.

Cities should be installing these everywhere. Some of the most progressive cities are already doing so. Brookline, Massachusetts, for example, has installed 50.

Rapid Flashing Beacon That is a fancy word for flashing lights that warn drivers a pedestrian is trying to cross the street. They require pedestrians to press a button when they are waiting to cross.

My anecdotal experience with this has been surprisingly good.

Scientific data that supports their wider use as well. The Federal Highway Administration reports this treatment been shown to reduce pedestrian-car crashes 47 percent, A St. Petersburg, Florida, study cited by the local ABC affiliate found they improved driver yielding by an astounding 85 percent.

Unfortunately, the federal government has only issued “interim approval” to these devices for frustrating reasons. The group in charge of signals and signs is slow to change, even in the face of mounting safety problems.

But cities can still install these helpful treatments, it just requires a little extra paperwork.

Photo: National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

Photo: Greg Voltz

Photo: FHWA

https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/safety/education/pedestrian/wipedstudy.pdf

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2019/02/28/pedestrian-safety-crisis-deaths-ghsa/2993321002/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/10/18/want-drivers-to-yield-to-pedestrians-you-gotta-play-mind-games/

https://twitter.com/BlineTransport/status/1139224233333182464

http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=54

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-pinellas/federal-government-no-more-flashing-pedestrian-crossings

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/01/11/engineers-group-to-pedestrians-no-walk-signs-for-you/

They can be especially helpful where bike trails cross roads or by schools. The median cost to install, according to FHWA was about $14,000.

Raised Crosswalks One of the best ways to make a mid-block crosswalk safer is simply lift it off the ground. Raised crosswalks are perfect for making pedestrians safer because they literally force drivers to slow down.

According to the Institute for Transportation Engineers [PDF], speed humps slow vehicles to about 20 mph, just the right speed for mixing with pedestrians.

A 2008 study by the Federal Highway Administration found these reduced vehicle-pedestrian crashes by 46 percent.

Raised crosswalk are elevated three to 3.5 inches off the ground and they plateau at the top for about 10 feet.

Some cities — *cough cough,* Cleveland — complain they don’t work well with snow plows. But this is a bad excuse for just leaving pedestrians to get killed or injured in the street. New York City has tens of thousands of intersection. It has started a minuscule program that has resulted in about a dozen raised crossings.

Refuge islands A great way to upgrade a mid-block crossing is to pour some concrete right in the middle and make pedestrians a refuge from traffic.

Pedestrian refuge islands make crossing “easier and safer” for pedestrians, according to the National Association for City Transportation Officials, “because they reduce the exposure time experienced by a pedestrian in the intersection.”

They can also be landscaped to look beautiful and they encourage drivers to slow down because they create an obstacle in the middle of the road.

Hawk Signals Some places, particularly Arizona, have begun installing HAWK — or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons — signals. These operate like traffic lights, but they are used mid-block specifically for pedestrian protection.

HAWK signs are activated by a button.

There’s good support for their safety benefits. The Federal Highway Administration says these have been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes 69 percent and overall crashes 19 percent.

The federal government has some perverse rules about this, requiring a pretty enormous amount of pedestrian traffic before one is “warranted” by engineering manuals. And they can also be expensive.

But on wider, higher-speed roads where a mid-block crossing is important, they can be really effective. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/14/building-a-safer-mid-block-crossing/

Photo: Safe Routes to School

Photo: NACTO

Photo: Mike Cynecki, via FHWA

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Parkhill-M.-Sooklall-R.-and-Bahar-G-2007.pdf

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/14/building-a-safer-mid-block-crossing/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/14/building-a-safer-mid-block-crossing/

STATES AREN’T EVEN TRYING TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEATHS by Angie Schmitt June 13, 2019

Fifty more people dead in Michigan. Sixty one in Virginia. One hundred and six in Arizona.

Those are the goals those state’s departments of transportation have set for themselves for road deaths under a new federal program challenging them to improve.

Even some of the most progressive states are calling for more people dead under new “targets” for certain performance measures they must report to the federal government. The goal-setting exercise is supposed to help make these huge bureaucracies that receive billions in federal funds every year slightly more accountable.

But the first round of goal-setting makes it clear states aren’t willing to make the substantive, structural changes to really improve safety. All of the states seem to be treating it more like a modeling exercise than any sort of call to action.

California

Take California, which has some of the most progressive transportation policies (as they relate to the environment anyway).

California’s goals call for 3,445 traffic deaths a year as the five-year average from 2014 through 2019. That’s 412 additional fatalities every year than the state averaged between 2011 and 2015.

True, California is adding people every year. Even so, this is an aspirational exercise in agenda setting with no penalties whatsoever for falling short.

California even — inexplicably — sets a goal for a higher fatality rate per miles driven.

The U.S. Department of Transportation notes in its description of the program that it “does not prescribe a methodology for states to set their annual safety performance targets. States have the flexibility to use the methodology they deem most appropriate.”

But it does say the targets should be “data-driven, realistic, and attainable.”

Ohio

Ohio has added a few hundred thousand people over the last two decades, but does actually call for a reduction in fatalities. But it’s miniscule.

The state’s target calls for 20 fewer deaths per year — about a 2-percent decrease from the rolling annual average between 2013 and 2017 versus the rolling period of 2015-2019.

Colorado

In Colorado, the “goal,” meanwhile, is a 16-percent increase in traffic fatalities, rising from 554 to 644 for the five year period ending in 2019.

Like California, Colorado isn’t even aiming to reduce fatalities when controlling for population growth and increase in driving miles. The state “targets” a 10-percent increase in its fatalities per 100 million miles driven.

At the same time the state acknowledges it has an “aspirational goal of moving Colorado towards zero deaths” in the “long term.” But it doesn’t seem to be at all willing to make the major changes needed to bring that about.

Photo: Anthony Quintano/Flickr

California’s goal is for more people to get killed in traffic. Graph: Federal Highway Administration

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/state_safety_targets/

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/state_safety_targets/

In its statement about the numbers, Colorado DOT blames it all on the models.

“Contributing factors were considered, including the following: population growth, increases in [vehicle miles traveled], economic growth, potential funding changes, and legislative changes,” the agency writes. “All of the models indicated future increases in fatality rates, resulting in short-term targets with an increase in the fatal rate.”

I reached out to Colorado DOT for more information.

“While we are doing the very best we can with the resources we have to improve safety, all of the factors that influence numbers of crashes are indicating increasing trends,” the agency responded. Specifically, CDOT wrote, population is increasing, driving miles are increasing, drunk driving is increasing [editor’s note: the Mile High State has legal pot], distracted driving is increasing and the agency isn’t anticipating any infusion of money for safety programs nor major legislative safety advances.

But Colorado DOT controls a $1.4 billion annual budget. Some of the funding is restricted. But the agency could direct additional funding to safety programs if it wanted.

Policy leaders at Transportation for America say states are showing a disappointing lack of ambition in keeping their own residents alive and healthy — even more so since there is no penalty for states that fall short of their goals. They would simply have to report that.

Transportation for America noted in a recent report that 10 of the 20 states with the worst pedestrian safety records were predicting more pedestrian deaths in the future.

“The only ‘acceptable’ number of deaths on our roadways is zero, but every single state — whether seeking to marginally reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries or allow this to continue to rise unabated — established a target for ‘success’ that allows these preventable deaths to continue or even increase,” the organization wrote.

“We can and must raise the bar,” the organization said. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/13/states-arent-even-trying-to-reduce-traffic-deaths/

Graph: FHWA

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/reporting/state/safety.cfm?state=Colorado

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/dangerous-by-design/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/13/states-arent-even-trying-to-reduce-traffic-deaths/

VANCOUVER BUILDS A BETTER BIKE LANE

The Western Canadian metropolis' bike network is thriving because it considers “all ages and abilities” in its street designs.

by Aaron Short June 10, 2019

Vancouver is on its way to becoming one of the best biking cities in North America because it considers the cycling needs of both children and seniors.

The Canadian seaport city aims on making its bike lanes “AAA-rated” — or safe and comfortable for riders of “all ages and abilities,” so they work whether the cyclist is 8 or 80.

That mantra, which Vancouver uses internally to guide its future transportation planning, has led to a 279-mile bike system in which cycle commuting doubled from 6.6 percent to 11.9 percent in five years and a comprehensive transit network where 50 percent of all trips are by bike, rail, bus, or foot.

Yet British Columbia officials realize there’s more to do to make their city truly an Amsterdam on the Pacific.

Vancouver placed 37th out of the world’s top 90 cities in Coya’s 2019 Global Bicycle Cities Index, ahead of San Francisco (39), Portland (41), and Seattle (50), but well behind Montreal (16). The eastern Canadian city fared better than it western rival because it had 32 percent fewer crashes (986 per 100,000) than Vancouver (1,456 per 100,000).

The city concurrently has an ambitious climate change goal of having Canucks make two-thirds of their trips by public transit, bike, or foot, ensure that 90 percent of residents live within walking or cycling distance of their daily needs, and by making half of all cars on the road be low emissions vehicles by 2030.

But having more cyclists on the road isn’t enough to make streets safe. Transportation planners need to install protected bike lanes and extend bike infrastructure through intersections to slow down speedy motorists, according to a May 2019 study.

In order to both reduce crashes and increase ridership, Vancouver’s planners acknowledge they need to make bike lanes wide enough for cyclists lugging their kids and groceries in cargo bikes and safe enough for children and the elderly to consider riding in a path with barriers separating them from zooming drivers.

The challenge for Vancouver is to adapt different lane designs for making cycling comfortable in different roadways. That could mean a shared pathway or “sharrow” or a painted lane on a low-speed, minimally trafficked road — say 500 per cars a day with a speed limit under 20 miles per hour — but a fully protected lane on busier streets, according to former Vancouver city planner Brent Toderian.

European cities like Utrecht, Munster, Antwerp, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam — the global top five — have a head start over Vancouver in making their bike infrastructure safe. Only 25 percent of Vancouver’s existing bike lanes meet its planners’ AAA guidelines for safety and accessibility in 2017, up from 15 percent seven years ago.

Engineers expect 30 percent of its lanes will meet their standards by 2022 but cycling advocates say Vancouver must concentrate on filling the gaps between bike routes to make riding safer and more seamless.

“There are segments of the network that just don’t exist so people get dropped into situations that don’t feel safe,” HUB Cycling Executive Director Erin O’Mellin told News 1130. “It’s not just how many of kilometers of bike lane we have but are they connected in a meaningful way to get people from point A to point B?” https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/10/vancouver-builds-a-better-bike-lane/

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/design-guidelines-for-all-ages-and-abilities-cycling-routes.pdf

https://www.tourismvancouver.com/activities/cycling-mountain-biking/bicycle-culture/

https://www.tourismvancouver.com/activities/cycling-mountain-biking/bicycle-culture/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90361034/if-only-experienced-cyclists-feel-safe-in-a-bike-lane-then-is-it-a-bike-lane-at-all

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/9/13897078/walkable-vancouver-video

https://coya.com/bike/index-2019

https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/05/14/vancouver-cycling-ranking/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/04/25/vancouver-unveils-north-americas-boldest-climate-action-plan/

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/cycling-report-card-2017.pdf


https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/06/10/vancouver-builds-a-better-bike-lane/

21 MORE KIDS GIFTED ADAPTIVE BIKES: ‘RIDE WITH YOUR

BROTHERS AND SISTERS’ WTVR-TV, Richmond August 5, 2019

RICHMOND, Va. – Twenty-one children received a new adaptive bike Sunday thanks to the kindness and generosity of an area nonprofit group. U.S. Army veteran James Howard started Richmond Empowering Abilities for Children with Cycles or REACHcycles after he received a similar bike several months after a swimming accident left him paralyzed. The three-wheeled cycles called AmTrykes are custom-made for each child based on their ability. "They're getting out and getting another form of exercise," Howard explained. "It’s just that emotional value to be able to ride with your brothers and sisters... We try to help with that." Each child was pre-selected by REACHcycles based on desire and need. Lisa Stone said her son's physical therapist recommended the bike and the program. "He's able to be a little boy that can ride a bike and be like other boys and girls," Stone said about her 11-year-old son, Christopher. "The opportunity to ride his bike in the park... This is fantastic." Organizers said they are always raising money since each bike can cost between $500-$1000. "We've given close to 400 bikes in five years," Howard explained. In fact, the group awarded 20 bikes to area children in March (https://wtvr.com/2019/03/24/reachcycles-march-24-event/). The group plans to give away more bikes at their next event, which is slated for December around Christmas. To donate, go to www.reachcycles.org/home.html .

©2019 WTVR-TV, Richmond

www.msn.com/en-us/news/good-news/21-more-kids-gifted-adaptive-bikes-ride-with-your-brothers-and-sisters/ar-AAFmWnc?OCID=ansmsnnews11


May 1 – May 31, 2019 (31 days)

Total Usage




#1 – Saturday, May 18th (Dunedin - 1,283)

#2 – Wednesday, May 29th (Palm Harbor - 1,238)

#3 – Monday, May 27th (Bay Pines - 1,068)

.

Counter Locations



East Lake Tarpon:

Palm Harbor:

Dunedin:

Clearwater:

Walsingham:

Seminole:

Bay Pines:

St. Petersburg:

Source: Forward Pinellas May 2019National Weather Service: May 2019

East Lake Tarpon

Palm Harbor

Dunedin

Clearwater

Walsingham

Seminole

Bay Pines

St. Petersburg

1% 99%

12% 88%

5% 95%

34% 66%

11% 89%

23% 77%

22% 78%

39% 61%



June 1 – June 30, 2019 (30 days)

Total Usage




#1 – Saturday, June 29th (Dunedin - 891)

#2 – Saturday, June 29th (Palm Harbor - 891)

#3 – Sunday, June 2nd (Bay Pines - 678)

* Denotes Palm Harbor Incomplete Dataset for June 2019.

Counter Locations



East Lake Tarpon:

Palm Harbor:

Dunedin:

Clearwater:

Walsingham:

Seminole:

Bay Pines:

St. Petersburg:

Source: Forward Pinellas June 2019National Weather Service: June 2019

East Lake Tarpon

* Palm Harbor

Dunedin

Clearwater

Walsingham

Seminole

Bay Pines

St. Petersburg

1% 99%

0% 100%

2% 98%

22% 78%

9% 91%

16% 84%

16% 84%

26% 74%

*

*


HOWARD FRANKLAND BRIDGE

COURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY

GANDY BRIDGE

ALT U

S 19

BAYS

HORE

BLVD

16TH

ST S

16TH

ST N

US 19

| 34T

H ST

S

PASA

DENA

AVE

ALT U

S 19

PINEL

LAS A

VEMAIN ST

CENTRAL AVE

8TH

ST S

DREW ST

INDIAN

ROCK

S RD

CURLEW RD

54TH AVE N

MCMU

LLEN

BOO

TH R

D

PARK

ST

GULF

BLV

D

SR 686 | EAST BAY DR

SR 688 | ULMERTON RD

KEEN

E RD

SR 580 | MAIN ST

38TH AVE N

SR 580

62ND AVE N

HIGH

LAND

AVE

GULF BLVD S

PARK BLVD

GULF-TO-BAY BLVD

102ND AVE N

22ND AVE S

5TH AVE N

49TH

ST N

ALT U

S 19 |

SEM

INOL

E BL

VD

31ST

ST S

MLK

JR AV

E

ALT US 19 | TYRONE BLVD

58TH

ST N

ENTERPRISE RD

ALT U

S 19 |

MIS

SOUR

I AVE

BELC

HER

RD

HAINES RD

GANDY BLVD

EAST

LAKE

RD

SR 584 | TAMPA RD

PALM

HAR

BOR

BLVD

SR 686

ROOSEVELT BLVD

I-275

66TH

ST N

62ND AVE S

TAMPA RD

DRUID RD

28TH

ST N

71ST

ST N

86TH AVE N

STAR

KEY R

D

KEYSTONE RD

BRYANDAIRY RD

NE COACHMAN RD

ANCLOTE BLVD

PINELLAS BAYWAYSR 682

PHILL

IPPE

PKW

Y

VONN

RD

SUNSET POINT RD

BELLEAIR RD

142ND AVE N

US 19

ALDERMAN RD

40TH AVE NE4TH

ST N

BAYSIDE BRIDGE

Locations of ReportedTraffic Fatalities

0 52.5Miles

¯

Data Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2016. Map Produced: August 2, 2019.\\pinellascounty-fl.gov\pcg\Plan_Dept\USERS\Autocadd\AppsSandra_MPO & PLN\_afatalmapunofficial\2019fatalsmapfile.mxd

1

(thru July 31st)YEAR 2019

Gulf of Mexico

Old Tampa Bay

£¤19

§̈¦275

Tampa Bay

Hillsb

oroug

h Cou

nty

Pasco County

Pinell

as C

ounty

Manatee County

Legend(includes othersmall modes)

(traffic related but medical condition caused death)

(traffic related butoccurred off roadway)

PEDESTRIANBICYCLEMOTORCYCLEAUTO-VEHICLE

MEDICAL

OTHER

*BICYCLE

Medical incidents include heart attacks, stroke, or other fatal condition.

FATALITIES CRASHES

*MOTORCYCLEAUTO-VEHICLE

% OFCRASHES

14 14 15 15 6 6

22 22

1 NON-TRAFFIC FATALS NOT INCLUDED ABOVE

TOTALS 61 61

23%25%10%36%*PEDESTRIAN

*VULNERABLE ROAD USERS ACCOUNT FOR 70% OF TOTAL ROADWAY FATALITIES

NOTE: Graphic not an official representation,based upon initial reporting, subject to changeupon verification.

**Same time end of July 2018: 62 fatals (21 peds, 5 bike, 17 mc, and 19 veh)**End of year (2018) 120 fatalities, 115 crashes (39 peds, 6 bike, 31 mc, and 44 Veh)

OTHER 4 4 6%

ORDER # CRASHES DATAID ON STREET CROSS STREET MODE DATE # FATAL APPROX TIME DHSMV LEO SEX/AGE1 1 004F19 34TH ST N 14TH AVE N PED/DELAY 1/18/2019 1 11:20PM 88601721 SP/SP M/491 1 005F19 GULF BLVD AT 17120 PED 1/25/2019 1 11:18PM ? PCSO/NRB M/611 1 011F19 4TH ST N NE LINCOLN CIR N PED 2/8/2019 1 8:18PM 88602248 SP/SP F/581 1 017F19 4TH ST N 62ND AVE N PED/DELAY 2/18/2019 1 11:53PM 88602393 SP/SP M/271 1 019F19 CR 296 / 118TH AVE N 457FT WEST OF 44TH ST N PED 2/23/2019 1 7:48PM 87788720 PP/PP M/611 1 021F19 76TH AVE 4TH ST PED/DELAY 3/6/2019 1 6:42PM 88602788 SP/SP F/781 1 022F19 BAYSHORE BLVD CEDAR ST PED 3/6/2019 1 7:22PM 88803900 PCSO/DUN M/751 1 024F19 US HWY 19 800 FT S OF 70TH AVE PED 3/11/2019 1 6:30AM 87788832 PP/PP M/711 1 026F19 CENTRAL AVE 28TH ST N PED/DELAY 3/16/2019 1 8:27PM 88603095 SP/SP M/741 1 027F19 STARKEY RD 583FT S OF78TH AVE N PED 3/17/2019 1 1:23AM 88804035 PCSO/UNINC M/411 1 029F19 SR688/ULMERTON RD US HWY 19 PED/DELAY 3/21/2019 1 8:50PM 88087558 FHP/UNINC M/541 1 031F19 SOUTH BELCHER RD DRUID RD PED 4/7/2019 1 9:22PM ? CLW/CLW M/611 1 033F19 49TH ST N ULMERTON RD PED/DELAY 4/18/2019 1 5:28PM ? FHP/UNINC M/361 1 037F19 GULF TO BAY BLVD AT 2275 BLOCK PED 5/10/2019 1 9:50PM ? CLW/CLW M/571 1 040F19 CENTRAL AVE 6400 BLOCK PED/DELAY 5/25/2019 1 9:18PM 88604856 SP/SP F/431 1 044F19 38TH AVE N 34TH ST N PED 6/14/2019 1 FRI NIGHT ? SP/SP F/?1 1 045F19 US HIGHWAY 19 ALDERMAN RD PED 6/15/2019 1 3:05PM ? FHP/UNINC F/761 1 047F19 CENTRAL AVE NEAR 58TH ST PED 6/26/2019 1 3:56PM 88605699 SP/SP F/701 1 053F19 EAST LAKE RD WOODLANDS BLVD PED 7/4/2019 1 3:09AM ? FHP/UNINC M/341 1 054F19 SEMINOLE BLVD NORTH OF 66TH AVE N PED 7/9/2019 1 9:23PM ? PCSO/UNINC F/501 1 056F19 DR MLK JR ST N 3400 BLOCK PED 7/15/2019 1 12:18AM 88606112 SP/SP F/261 1 058F19 5TH AVE N 20TH ST N PED 7/18/2019 1 9:30PM PCSO/UNINC F/302 1 003F19 64TH ST S 500 BLOCK BIC 1/10/2019 1 07:22AM 88601552 SP/SP M/642 1 012F19 SB 49TH ST N 54TH AVE N BIC 2/9/2019 1 12:41AM ? FHP/UNINC F/282 1 016F19 WEST BAY DR HARBOR VIEW LN BIC 2/17/2019 1 8:42PM 88803733 PCSO/BB M/562 1 036F19 NURSERY ROAD AT DUKE ENERGY TRAIL/PINELLAS TRAILBIC 5/8/2019 1 8:26PM ? CLW/CLW F/492 1 047AF19 DREW ST AREA BY 1873 BIC/DELAY 6/23/2019 1 2:13PM ? CLW/CLW M/812 1 049F19 INDIAN ROCKS CSWY BRIDGE WEST BOUND SIDE BIC 6/28/2019 1 FRI NIGHT ? PCSO/UNINC F/173 1 002F19 MELROSE AVE S DR MLK JR ST S MC/INTOW 1/7/2019 1 10:01PM 88601549 SP/SP M/303 1 015F19 CENTRAL AVE TREASURE ISL. CSWY. MC 2/16/2019 1 4:50PM 86602423 SP/SP M/203 1 018F19 OLD COACHMAN RD WETHERINGTON RD MC 2/23/2019 1 9:36AM 88060699 FHP/CLW M/663 1 030F19 SERVICE RD / US HWY 19 JUST N OF GULF TO BAY BLVD MC 3/30/2019 1 5:45AM 88757796 CLW/CLW M/313 1 032F19 62ND AVE 25TH ST MC 4/11/2019 1 7:34PM ? FHP/UNINC M/583 1 034F19 GULF TO BAY BLVD MCMULLEN BOOTH RD MC/DELAY 4/18/2019 1 9:04PM ? CLW/CLW M/763 1 035F19 I 275 AT MILE MARKER 23 MC 5/3/2019 1 10:02PM ? FHP/UNINC M/273 1 038F19 US HIGHWAY 19 JUST SOUTH OF 126TH AVE MC 5/12/2019 1 MORNING ? PP/PP M/223 1 039F19 SUNSET POINT ROAD SHARONDALE DR/WEST OF KEENE RDMC 5/17/2019 1 5:50PM ? CLW/CLW M/203 1 041F19 S FT HARRISON AVE BELLEVIEW BLVD MC 6/1/2019 1 5:02PM ? CLW/CLW M/563 1 046F19 40TH AVE NE 1100 BLOCK MC 6/22/2019 1 8:30PM 88605654 SP/SP M/263 1 050F19 GULF BLVD IN FRONT OF 10601 MC 6/29/2019 1 8:11PM ? PCSO/UNINC M/623 1 052F19 54TH AVE WEST OF 58 ST N MC 7/1/2019 1 1:30PM ? KC/KC F/?3 1 055F19 29TH AVE N 58TH ST N MC 7/13/2019 1 9:51PM 88606092 SP/SP M/313 1 059F19 18TH AVE S 28TH ST S MC/DELAY 7/19/2019 1 11:03PM 88606237 SP/SP M/494 1 001F19 49TH ST N 46TH AVE N VEH 1/5/2019 1 2:33PM 88020751 FHP/UNINC M/694 1 007F19 EAST LAKE RD PASADO RD VEH/PASS 1/27/2019 1 4:47AM ? FHP/UNINC M/374 1 006F19 49TH ST N 3800 BLOCK VEH/PASS 1/27/2019 1 11:55AM 88601903 SP/SP F/404 1 008F19 STARKEY RD 1100 BLOCK VEH/PASS 1/27/2019 1 7:00PM ? LA/LA F/?4 1 013F19 5TH AVE (IRB) 271FT EAST OF E GULF AVE VEH 2/9/2019 1 8:22PM 88803691 PCSO/UNINC M/754 1 014F19 CR 611/MCMULLEN BOOTH RD TAMPA RD VEH 2/15/2019 1 8:50PM MED? 85278840 FHP/UNINC M/794 1 020F19 DOUGLAS AVE 28FT N OF OVERBROOK AVE VEH 3/3/2019 1 4:15PM 88757608 CLW/CLW M/574 1 023F19 ULMERTON RD 34TH ST N VEH 3/10/2019 1 3:54PM 87276289 FHP/UNINC M/604 1 025F19 66TH ST N 126TH AVE N VEH 3/14/2019 1 3:09AM 88804056 PCSO/UNINC F/284 1 042F19 US HIGHWAY 19 DREW ST VEH 6/2/2019 1 5:04PM ? CLW/CLW F/574 1 043F19 EAST LAKE RD GREY OAKS BLVD VEH 6/7/2019 1 6:09AM ? FHP/UNINC M/534 1 048F19 PHILIPPE PARKWAY N OF AVON DR VEH 6/26/2019 1 6:39PM ? PCSO/UNINC M/624 1 057F19 DR MLK JR ST N 110TH AVE N VEH/PASS/DELAY 7/18/2019 1 5:30PM 88606203 SP/SP F/584 1 060F19 DR MLK JR ST N 6300 BLOCK VEH 7/24/2019 1 11:41PM 88606338 SP/SP M/375 1 009F19 2410 FRANCISCAN DRIVE PARKING LOT OTHER/PED/DELAY 1/27/2019 1 7:14PM ? FHP/UNINC M/945 1 028F19 196 VALENCIA CIRCLE PRIVATE OTHER/PED 3/20/2019 1 4:37AM 88603124 SP/SP F/475 1 032AF19 5885 SEMINOLE BLVD PARKING LOT OTHER/PED/DELAY 4/18/2019 1 12:15PM 88804264 PCSO/UNINC M/875 1 051F19 1 BEACH DRIVE SE PRIVATE PARKING GARAGE OTHER/VEH/PASS/DELAY 7/1/2019 1 1:23PM 88605793 SP/SP M/956 1 010F19 FEATHER SOUND DR VIZCAYA DR MED/PED 2/4/2019 0 5:02PM MEDICAL FHP/UNINC M/67

62 61

# CRASHES # FATALS